IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2200 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.730/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... (CRIME NO.152/2003 OF THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- ROHIDA, D/O.SANKARANAYANAN, MARAKULATH HOUSE,POOZHITHARA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the second accused in C.C.No. 733/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram. As petitioner was absconding, accused 1 and 3 to 5 were tried after splitting up the case as against the petitioner and refiling it as C.C.No.730/2007. Under Annexure-C judgment, all the other accused were acquitted. Prosecution case is that the five accused, all women, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed riot at Poozhithara on 15.5.2003 at about 8.15 p.m. and getting information that a compound wall was being unauthorisedly demolished by a group of people, police party, headed by the defacto complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, reached there and all the accused, in furtherance of their common object, obstructed the police party from discharging their official duty and thereby CRMC 2200/08 2 committed offences under Sections 143, 147 and 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the order of acquittal as against the co-accused and in the absence of any specific case for prosecution that petitioner committed any particular overt act, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no chance for a conviction and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-C judgment shows that even though the Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector and the eye witnesses were examined, learned Magistrate found that there is no acceptable legal evidence to establish that accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of deterring the police party from discharging their official duty or in furtherance of their common CRMC 2200/08 3 object caused obstruction to the police party from discharging their official duty and acquitted accused 1 and 3 to 5. The question is, in the light of the findings in Annexure-C judgment, even if petitioner is to be tried, whether there is any chance for a conviction. 4. All the prosecution witnesses, who are to be examined in this case, were examined by prosecution in C.C.No.733/2003. Learned Magistrate, on proper appreciation of evidence, found that based on the evidence, accused cannot be convicted. In the light of that finding, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no chance for a conviction. If that be so, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of trial, it will serve no fruitful purpose, except wasting the valuable time of the court. Case would have been different, if there was any specific case of an overt act as against the petitioner. It is not the case. Prosecution case is only that petitioner was also one among the members CRMC 2200/08 4 of the unlawful assembly. When the four accused, stand acquitted, finding that there was no unlawful assembly or that they, as members of the unlawful assembly, did not deter the police party from discharging their official duty, even if petitioner is to be tried, she cannot be convicted. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to prosecute the petitioner further, when chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.730/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram as against the petitioner is quashed. 8th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv