IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 839 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- CP.NO.61/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TIRUR. CRIME NO.400/2006 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3,10,11,19,20 AND 24 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANWAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. CHEREETH, KUNHALAKATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM & DESOM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KODIYANTEPURAKKAL FAIZAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KODIYANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, VETTAM AMSOM, PARAVANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KUNHALAKATH MUJEEB, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. HAMZA, KUNHALAKATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KUNHALAKATH RAZACK, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. HAMZA, KUNHALAKATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KATTUKADAVATH IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUTTIALI, KATTUKADAVATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. KATTUKADAVATH ASHRAF, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KUTTIALI, KATTUKADAVATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. KOTTILAKATH SAVAD, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAYAMUTTI, KOTTILAKATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PARAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) Crl.MC.No. 839 of 2010(A) RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMINAKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.BEERANKUTTY, THAYUMMANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, PRAVANNA AMSOM, VETTAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.839 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 31st March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2,3,10, 11, 19,20 and 24 in C.P.61/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. As petitioners were absconding, the case as against them were split up and the case as against accused 1, 4 to 9, 12 to 18, 21 to 23 and 25 was committed to the Sessions court. Learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.400/2009 and made it over to Additional Sessions court, Manjeri for trial and disposal. By Annexure-B judgment, Additional Sessions Judge acquitted those accused. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that even when the co- accused were tried in S.C.400/2009, no evidence was let in by the prosecution witnesses against Crmc 839/10 2 the accused and entire disputes with the first respondent, owner of the house which was burnt, were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, even if petitioners are to be tried there is no likelihood of a conviction and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that on 13/6/2006 at about 8.15 p.m, 25 accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and indulged in the act of rioting, armed with Crmc 839/10 3 deadly weapons and committed criminal trespass into the house compound of first respondent, intimidated her and also set fire to her house and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 506(ii) and 436 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-B judgment shows that out of 25 accused, 18 were already acquitted finding that there is no evidence as against the accused. Annexure-B judgment shows that though first respondent was examined as PW1 and she admitted her F.I statement, she deposed that she had given particulars therein on a wrong information furnished to her by some people of the locality. The other witnesses who were examined as eye witnesses, turned hostile and deposed that they did not see the incident. In the light of those evidence, even if petitioners are to be tried there is no Crmc 839/10 4 likelihood of a successful prosecution. Added to this, entire disputes between the petitioner and first respondent were settled amicably, evidenced by the affidavit filed by first respondent. Consequent to the settlement, it is absolutely clear that first respondent will not give any evidence against the petitioners even if she is to be examined. The eye witnesses have already given evidence that they did not witness the incident. In such circumstances, even if petitioners are to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. C.P.61/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.