IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 803 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- SC.488/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S) - ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- K. NIVESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KURUNGOT HOUSE, THALASSSERY DESOM, MANNAYAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SHANOJ SRI.C.I.RIYAD SRI.C.MOHAMMED HABEEB RESPONDENT(S) - COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.803 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.94 of 2001 of Dharmadam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal code. Case is that on 22.05.2001 at about 8.45 p.m. petitioner and other accused who belonged to a political party dragged out C.W.1 from a room and assaulted him with a sword like weapon, axe and iron rod. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was attacked by the 5th accused with axe while other accused (obviously including petitioner also) assaulted him with iron rods. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the ground that all other accused are acquitted as per Annexure-A2, judgment and the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This is a case involving public tranquility and peace and involving serious offences including one under Sec.307 of the IPC. Political enmity is said to be the reason for the incident. CRL.M.C. No.803 of 2011 -: 2 :- Having regard to the circumstances and the weapons used, I am inclined to think that this is not a fit case for quashing proceeding on the strength of a settlement. Incidents of this nature involving public tranquility and peace cannot be settled between petitioners and C.W.1. In such situation showing indulgence and quashing proceeding will give only wrong a message to the law breakers who indulge in destroying public tranquility and peace. 3. Then the next question is whether based on Annexure- A2, judgment proceeding against petitioner is liable to be quashed. I have gone through Annexure-A2, judgment and I find that P.Ws.1 to 3 have given evidence in support of the prosecution. They also stated about the incident and involvement of the accused including petitioner. The defence examined D.Ws.1 and 2. Learned Sessions Judge found defect in their evidence in regard to the weapons allegedly used and held that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the incident occurred as alleged. Manner of appreciation of evidence in the case against other accused is no ground to quash proceeding against petitioner. Annexure-2, judgment can be looked into only to note that the other accused were acquitted. I am not persuaded to think that this is a case where Annexure-2, judgment destroyed the CRL.M.C. No.803 of 2011 -: 3 :- substratum of prosecution case so that proceeding against petitioner could be quashed. Petitioner has to face the trial. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv