IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1516 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.917/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- IRSHAD, S/O. MOHAMMED, ANJOOR VALAPPIL HOUSE, KARIKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, MR.SAIJO HASSAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM. 3. UMMER, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU VILLAGE, KARIKKODU DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM. 4. ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU VILLAGE, KARIKKODU DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM. 5. ABBAS, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU VILLAGE,KARIKKODU DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB R3 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.V.K.RAFEEK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1516 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.C.917/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions court, (Fast Track-II, Adhoc), Thrissur. Case as against accused 1 to 4 and 6 were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C.743/2007 and under Annexure-III judgment dated 14/1/2008, those accused were acquitted holding that there is no evidence to prove the offences alleged. Prosecution case is that all the accused 6 in numbers, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 20/11/2003 at about 8.30 pm armed with deadly weapons like sword, stones etc. and committed riot with the intention to cause death of respondents 1 and 2 and caused hurt and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. There was a counter case as against Pws.1 and 2 which was also acquitted subsequent to settlement of the dispute between the parties. This petition is filed under CRMC 1516/09 2 Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash S.C.917/2007 contending that when Pws.1 and 2 were examined in S.C.743/2007, factum of settlement was disclosed to the court and in view of the settlement, they did not give any evidence in favour of the prosecution and in such circumstances, no purpose will be served by undergoing ordeal of the trial, except waste of valuable time of the court. It is also contended that respondents 3 to 5 submitted into Annexure-IV declaration that they have settled the dispute and they do not intent to prosecute the petitioner in S.C.917/2007. Respondents 3 to 5 appeared through a learned counsel and submitted that the case has been settled by respondents 2 and 3 and they have no intention to proceed with the case and therefore they have no objection for quashing the case. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that no affidavit was filed by respondents 3 to 5 and there is no petition declaring composition of the offences or seeking permission of the court for composition and hence the case cannot be quashed. 2. Annexure-IV declaration made by respondents 3 to 5 with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for them establish that they are CRMC 1516/09 3 not prepared to give any evidence against the petitioner, even if they are examined in S.C.917/2007. Annexure-III judgment in S.C.743/2007 establish that even when the other accused were tried by learned Sessions Judge they did not give any evidence against them and learned Sessions Judge himself has recorded that it was on account of the settlement arrived at Cws.1 to 3 the accused in the counter case. In such circumstances, it is absolutely clear that even if petitioner is to be tried in S.C.917/2007 respondents 2 to 5 the main witnesses are not going to give any evidence against them. In such circumstances, there is no chance for a conviction. If the petitioner is to be tried, it would simply be waste of the valuable time of the court, which could be effectively be used for better purpose. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. In the interest of justice, S.C.917/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions court, (Fast Track-II), Thrissur) is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.