IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3516 of 2011() ------------------------- (SC No.116/09 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KASARAGOD IN CRIME No.259/1992 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/CW 1 AND 2: --------------------------------------- 1. THIMMANNA SHETTY, S/O.DHOOMANNA SHETTY, MEGINA MANE HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE. 2. JAYANANDA, S/O.RAMAPPA, MEETHE KANILA HOUSE, MANJESHWAR GRAMAM, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. LATHEEF, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI HAJI, NEAR UPPALA GATE, UPPALA, KASARAGOD-671121. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION-671121. 3. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. CIBI THOMAS R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG Crl. M.C No.3516/2011. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC 18/2001 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KASARAGODE. ANNEXURE-II - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC 116/09. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE AMG N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3516 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 Order The petitioners are witness nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.116 of 2009 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Kasaragode. They are C.Ws.1 and 2 in Crime No.259 of 1992 of Manjeshwar Police Station. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against 15 accused persons. Out of them, some of the accused faced trial and they were acquitted by the trial court. The first respondent in this petition was stated to be the 8th accused in the charge sheet filed by the police. The offences alleged against the first respondent and other accused were under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 436 and 153A read with 149 IPC. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners contending that they have no grievance in the matter and so further proceedings against the first respondent may be quashed. This is not a petition filed for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The offences alleged against the accused are not compoundable Crl.M.C.3516/11 2 offences nor are they offences pertaining to disputes purely personal in nature. Section 436 IPC which is a very serious offence, a sessions offence, also is required to be quashed, the two witnesses contend. That apart, the offence under Section 153A IPC is not concerning personal disputes. It is a serious offence, affecting the public tranquility and promoting communal hatred etc. 3. That apart, there is one more aspect which assumes importance here. On going through the charge sheet, it is seen that it is not only witness nos.1 and 2 who are stated to have sustained loss due to the mischiefs committed by the accused. The shop of the 8th witness was destroyed by setting it ablaze. He has not comeforward to say that he has no grievance in the matter. The 5th witness also had sustained loss to a tune of Rs.5000/-. The contention that C.W.8 is not available for examination is not a reason to quash the sessions case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the other accused were acquitted since C.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution. It is important to note that besides C.Ws.1 and 2, there are two other eye witnesses C.Ws.3 and 4 Crl.M.C.3516/11 3 also to prove the case. There are a few other witnesses also whose evidence also may be relevant. It is true that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge who tried the earlier case examined only C.Ws.1 and 2. It is not known why the other two eye witnesses to the occurrence were not examined at all. It seems, that aspect was not at all considered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. It is suppressing all those facts the petitioners have comefoward to get an order of quashment of the charge against the first respondent herein. It is without the junction of C.W.5 and C.W.8 (the aggrieved persons) this petition is filed to quash the Sessions Case. It is for the trial Judge to take coercive steps to secure the presence of all the witnesses to the occurrence and also P.W.5 and P.W.8, the person who had sustained loss when the court is to proceed with the trial of the case. There can be no short cut method. It is not a dispute purely personal in nature so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.3516/11 4 Crl.M.C.3516/11 5