IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3814 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.144/2011 (FORMERLY C.C. NO.567/2003) OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, RANNI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN, VALUPURAYIDATHIL, KUDAMURUTTY MURI, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK. (FORMERLY ACCUSED NO.3) BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH, SRI.V.VINAY. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNAD POLICE STATION, PIN-686 845. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 3814 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R PENDING AS C.C. NO. 567/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.M.C., RANNI. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CR.M.C. 899/2010 OF THIS COURT. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT. ANNEXURE 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 567/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.M.C., RANNI. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No. 3814 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 ORDER Petitioner was the 3rd accused in C.C.No.567/2003. His father and mother were the first and 2nd accused. The incident, according to the de facto complainant (PW1), took place on 12.7.2003. The complaint was filed only on 21.7.2003. That complaint was forwarded to the police. After investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner and other accused alleging offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 341, 447, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC. The petitioner was working abroad and so he could not appear to face the trial. The other accused, who faced trial were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The case against the petitioner was split-up and refiled as CC.144/2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the evidence of PW1- the de facto complainant, no other evidence was adduced with regard to the incident in question. The learned Magistrate who tried the case Crl.M.C.No. 3814 of 2011 -: 2 :- against other accused was not persuaded to accept the evidence of PW1. The delay in filing the complaint was also taken note of by the learned Magistrate to reject the prosecution case. Hence, the learned counsel submits that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case against this petitioner. It is also pointed out that the only overt act alleged by PW1 against the other accused including the petitioner was only a general allegation that they trespassed into the property in question. It is also pointed out that a civil suit is actually pending before the civil court and it was pertaining to the right of way they claimed, this complaint also was filed. As the evidence of PW1 was found unconvincing, according to the learned counsel, this is a fit case where this Court can invoke Sec.482 to quash the proceedings. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the de facto complainant who was examined as PW1 is aged 75 years. Crl.M.C.No. 3814 of 2011 -: 3 :- Considering all the aspects, I find, it is just and proper that the entire further proceedings as against this petitioner is quashed so that there would be a quietus to the litigation. This petition is allowed. Proceedings against the petitioner in CC.144/2011 of JFCM Court - I, Ranni is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd