IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3882 of 2005() ------------------------------ CC. 67/2003 IN LP.40/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO. 2 -------------------------------------- ABDUL NAZER, S/O. MUHAMMED, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, THACHINGANADAM P.O., PATTIKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, MELATTUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO.3882/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.237/1999 DATED 17TH MARCH 2003. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 161 of 1998 of Melattur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 332 r/w Section 34 IPC and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna as L.P. No. 40 of 2003. By judgment dated 17.03.2003 in C.C. No. 237 of 1999, the co-accused persons have been acquitted. The finding of the said court is quoted hereunder: “It should be noted that though all the prosecution witnesses deposed in chief examination that A3 was among those persons who pelted stones to the police, they deposed during cross examination that they have not seen A3 doing anything. It is also submitted by the prosecution witnesses that A3 is a voter of the bank. The contention of A3 is that he went to the school for voting and according to him due to the political influence a false case is foisted against him. The case of the prosecution is that A3 pelted stones to PW1 and PW2 and thereby they sustained injuries. But both PW1 and PW2 deposed that they have not seen A3 pelting stones to them whereas they deposed that A2 beaten them with stick and A1 pelted stones to them. Therefore, on going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution I find that prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of A3 beyond reasonable doubt.” Crl.M.C. No. 3882/2005 -:2:- 3. Since all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the accused persons were acquitted. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing the accused person to face trial and the continuance of a criminal case will be abuse of process of court. Accordingly, I direct that L.P. No. 40 of 2003 in C.C. No. 67 of 2003 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna be treated to be closed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv