IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3113 of 2009 --------------------------------------- LP.6/2008 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHIHAB, S/O.MAMMU, PERKUTHU HOUSE, KALKULAM, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. RASHEEDA, W/O.SHAMEER, PUTHIYATH VEETIL, CHEMBRASSERY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the third accused in S.C.No. 368/2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri. As petitioner was absconding, the case as against him was split up and refiled and thereafter included in the long pending register as L.P.No. 6/2008. Remaining five accused were tried and under Annexure-B judgment, finding not guilty of the offences, all of them were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acquittal of the co-accused and also in view of the settlement with the second respondent, the defacto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure-C affidavit stating that in CRMC 3113/09 2 view of the settlement of the disputes with the petitioner, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A final report, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 511 of 366 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code shows that prosecution case is that on 26.4.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., while second respondent and her husband were walking along the public road, in front of the Panchayat Office at Pandikad, accused 1 to 3 came in autorickshaw KL-11/J 941 and wrongfully restrained them in furtherance of their common intention to abduct the second respondent by using criminal force and caused her to enter into the autorickshaw and all the accused thereby committed the offences. Annexure-B judgment establishes that based on the evidence, including the evidence of CRMC 3113/09 3 second respondent, the defacto complainant and her husband and the independent witness, learned Assistant Sessions Judge already found that there is unexplained delay in preferring the F.I. Statement and improvements in their versions from stage to stage, which make their testimony suspicious and the oral testimony before the court was inconsistent and the evidence shows that there was a quarrel between the husband of the second respondent and the drivers at the autorickshaw stand and the accused intervened in that matter and therefore, they were falsely implicated and it was also found that second respondent and her husband had no previous acquaintance with the accused and no test identification parade was also conducted and possibility of a mistaken identity cannot be ruled out. It was also found that in the F.I. Statement there was allegation only as against three persons and subsequently, case has been proceeded against six accused. In view of the CRMC 3113/09 4 evidence, it was found that it is not possible to convict the accused. That findings, though recorded in the absence of the petitioner, would establish that even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction. It would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Added to this, second respondent, the defacto complainant, herself had stated that in view of the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. Prosecution witnesses, who were examined in the earlier trial, did not support the prosecution. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.6/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri is quashed. 12th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv