IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5025 of 2010() ------------------------------ (LPC NO.110/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, HOSDURG) ......... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------ ANWAR A.K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMU, MANGAD HOUSE, BARE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABBAS.K.A., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, MEETHAL MANGAD, BARE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.CISSY MATHEWS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHEMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5025 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of February, 2011 ORDER The second petitioner in Crime No.437 of 2006 of Bekal Police Station and L.P.C.No.110 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg seeks to quash proceedings against him for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(i) r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that between two political groups there was a clash and that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Police after investigation submitted Annexure-B, final report in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg against petitioner and seven others. Since the 5th and 6th accused were juveniles at the time of the alleged incident, final report against them was submitted in the Juvenile Justice Court, Kasaragod. Learned counsel submits, those accused were acquitted. Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 faced trial but in the meantime since the matter was settled and all the occurrence witnesses spoke against the prosecution, those accused were acquitted by Annexure-C, judgment. Since petitioner was employed in Gulf he could not face trial along with accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7. Hence the case Crl.M.C.No.5025 of 2010 -: 2 :- against him was split up, refiled as C.C.No.648 of 2008 and included in the L.P register as No.110 of 2010. Prayer in this proceeding is to quash proceeding against petitioner in the light of acquittal of other accused and Annexure-D, affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the de facto complainant and injured. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that though as per the prosecution case it was a political clash, it is the first accused who is said to have used punch against the de facto complainant/respondent No.1 and that petitioner is implicated in the case on the allegation of being a member of that unlawful assembly and for allegedly threatening the de facto complainant with an urumi (a long, sword like weapon with narrow blade). There is no case that petitioner had used the urumi against the de facto complainant or anybody else. It is submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that in the light of the settlement there is no possibility of a successful prosecution as seen from Annexure-C, judgment where accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 were acquitted. 3. It is seen that none of the occurrence witnesses supported the prosecution in the case against accused Nos.1, 3, 4 Crl.M.C.No.5025 of 2010 -: 3 :- and 7. True, that is not a ground to quash proceeding against petitioner. But, it is seen from Annexure-D, affidavit that respondent No.1 has settled the case with petitioner and does not intend to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Taking the overall circumstances into consideration I do not consider it necessary that petitioner should be asked to face the trial since that would not yield result and would only be a wasteful exercise in the light of the settlement parties have reached and the incident alleged is also not of that much serious nature. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Annexure-B, final report against the petitioner in Crime No.437 of 2006 of Bekal Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings in C.C.No.648 of 2008 and L.P.No.110 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg to the extent it concerned the petitioner are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-