IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3506 of 2011(C) ------------------------- CC.838/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. T.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 45 YEARS, THAYAMPATH HOUSE, KELOTH, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 2. PRAKSHAN.K.M., S/O.KANNAN NAIR, KANKOL AMSOM, ALAKKAD, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M.K.KUNJIKANNAN, S/O.MANIKKIYAM, PERUMTHATTA, PURAKUNNU, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 4. K.P.CHANDRAN, S/O.PAITHAN, MATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, THUMBATHADOM, PAYYANNUR. 5. T.ROY, S/O.JOSEPH, THONIKUZHIYIL, ALAKOD AMSOM, PARAPPA, KANNUR. 6. SATHEESHAN.T., S/O.AMBU, KELOTH, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR. 7. V.V.KUNJIKRISHNAN, S/O.AMBU, PLAYYANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 8. PACHA RAJEEVAN, S/O.CHIRUKANDAN, KARUVACHERI, PAYYANNUR. 9. N.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN VELLOOR AMSOM, KARAMAL, PAYYANNUR. 10. K.V.RAJEEVAN, S/O.KUNJAPPA, KOTTOOR AMSOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 11. P.SHYJU, S/O.KUNJAMBU, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA .....Contd) Crl.MC.No. 3506 of 2011(C) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUGUNAN, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, S/O.KUNHAPPA, ARATHIL, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KANNUR, PIN-670 307. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA FOR R1 ADV. SRI. T.V. PRAMOD FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3506 of 2011(C) APPENDIX: PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 20.10.05 IN CC No.838/2005 OF JFCM, PAYYANNUR. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2005 IN W.P.(C) 22698/05. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT OF DR. RATHEN KELKAR ASST. COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.2.2009 IN WPC 18890/07 OF THIS COURT. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.8.2010 IN WPC 21126/2006. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 17.12.2010. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2010 IN CMP 4465/10 IN CC 838/05 ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT OF THE MANORAMA DAILY DATED 22.10.04. ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MALAYALAM MAGAZINE DATED 23.3.2007. ANNEXURE A10: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST DATED 9.11.07 IN CC 838/05 JFCM PAYYANNUR. ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2011 IN CRL.MC. 1219/11. ANNEXURE A13: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT DATED NIL IN CC No. 838/05 OF JFCM PAYYANNUR. ANNEXURE A14: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.8.2011 IN CMP 3883/11 IN CC No.838/2005 OF JFCM PAYYANNUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 3506 of 2011 . ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2011. ORDER The petitioners are the accused in C.C. 838 /2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. The offences alleged against them are under Section 143, 147, 342, 353, 384, 506(1) r/w 149 IPC. The incident took place on 21.10.2004. It is alleged that CW2, Sugunan was wrongfully restrained by a group of people and he was threatened and some papers were forcibly got signed by CW2, Sugunan. When the police party reached there they were also prevented from discharging their official duties by using force. Charge sheet was laid against the accused alleging the offence as above. The learned Magistrate as per Annexure A7 order found that there are no materials to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC. 2. Since it was submitted before this Court that the parties have settled the matter as per Annexure A12 order Crl.M.C..No. 3506/2011 2 the learned Magistrate was directed by this Court to record the statements of the petitioners and de-facto complainant and if the Magistrate is satisfied that the parties have settled the matter the learned Magistrate can close the case. Thereafter, joint statement of accused and complainant (CW2) was filed before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate found that the police officer is the de- facto complainant and hence the request to close the case was not accepted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for CW2 would submit that the incident took place in the year 2004 and the parties have settled the matter long back. Considering the background in which the alleged incident took place it is just and proper that further proceedings are quashed. The contention that the police officer is the de-facto complainant is taken exception to by the learned counsel. As per Annexure A7 the learned Magistrate has already discharged the accused of the offence under Section 353 of IPC. Hence it cannot be said Crl.M.C..No. 3506/2011 3 that for entering into a compromise the police officer should also be a party. Other offences alleged against the accused are only pertaining to the offending act alleged against CW2. Since CW2 has already filed a statement to the effect that the matter has been settled and also considering the fact that seven years have elapsed after the incident, it is just and proper that this petition is allowed. In the result this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C. 838/2005 of JFCM Payyannur is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, (Judge) Kp/-