IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3437 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.5038/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- MANIKANDAN,AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SOMASUNDARAN,PATTALI HOUSE,PRIYA BAZAR, VALAPAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPAD, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.M.SANEER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU CR.M.C.NO.3437/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURS: ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.14/2010 OF VALAPAD POLICE STATION DTED 5/1/2010. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 20/8/2010. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.858/2010 OF JFCM , KODUNGALLUR. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3437 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was the first accused in S.T.No.858/2010. The offences alleged against him and other accused are under Secs.447, 506(i), 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. Some of the other accused persons faced trial and they were acquitted by the learned Magistrate and the de facto complainant did not support the prosecution, evidently because the matter was stated to have been settled out of court. The case against this petitioner and another accused was split up and was refiled as S.T.No.5038/2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first accused now submits that in view of the settlement and the statement already given by PW1 (the de facto complainant in the original case - S.T.No.858/2010), further proceeding as against the petitioner may be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out Crl.M.C. No.3437 of 2011 -: 2 :- that in the evidence given by PW1 it was categorically stated by him that nobody had trespassed into his house and nobody had threatened or abused him. It was also stated by him that the case was settled out of court. In these circumstance, it would be a futile exercise to proceed against this petitioner. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceeding against this petitioner (accused in S.T.No.5038/2010 on the file of J.F.C.M., Kodungallur) is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt