IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 837 of 2011() ------------------------ SC.69/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... (CRIME NO.47/2006 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SABEESH.O.V., S/O.O.V.BHASKARAN, CHUNDA,KANNAPURAM, P.O.MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.P.YESODA, D/O.KUNHAMBU, PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, CHUNDA, KANNAPURAM, P.O.MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR - 670 002. 3. C.DEEPA, W/O.AJEENDRAN, PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, CHUNDA, KANNAPURAM, P.O.MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR - 670 002. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.837 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.47 of 2006 of Kannapuram Police Station and S.C.No.69 of 2011 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 450, 436, 437 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioner and six others trespassed into the house of the second respondent/de facto complainant on 03.10.2005 at about 9.30p.m and committed offences as alleged. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 faced trial in S.C.No.410 of 2007 and were acquitted as per Annexure-AII, judgment. The third accused approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.4281 of 2010 with a request to quash proceeding against him in the light of acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 6. This Court by Annexure-AIII, order dated November 22, 2010 has quashed proceeding against the third accused. Now, it is the turn of the 5th accused who has come before this Court with this application to quash proceeding against him not only on the strength of acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 6, quashing of proceeding against the third respondent but also on the strength Crl.M.C.No.837 of 2011 -: 2 :- of Annexures-AIV and AV, affidavits sworn by the second respondent/de facto complainant and the third respondent that the dispute is settled between them and petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that in the above circumstances proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. According to learned Public Prosecutor, having regard to the serious nature of the incident, quashing of proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted. 2. I have gone through Annexure-AII, judgment. It is seen that witnesses examined by the prosecution including the second respondent did not support the prosection for one reason or other failing to identity any of the assailants. True, petitioner was not in the dock of the accused at that time. But, it is seen that in the light of Annexure-AII, judgment proceeding against the third respondent has been quashed by this Court by Annexure-A1, order. Allegation against petitioner in the final report is similar to that against the third accused. Further, petitioner has settled the dispute with the second respondent as seen from Annexures-AIV and AV affidavits of second and third respondents. Second and third respondents have appeared Crl.M.C.No.837 of 2011 -: 3 :- through counsel. In the circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of proceeding against petitioner would only be a wasteful exercise. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and proceeding against petitioner in S.C.No.69 of 2011 of Sessions Court, Thalassery will stand quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-