IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ [L.P. NO. 30/1997 IN C.C. NO. 728/1995 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS-I, PATHANAMTHITTA] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- HARIKUMAR, S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, PLANTHOTTATHIL PADINJARETHIL, POTHIPPAD, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, MR.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESS AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THANKACHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O THOMAS PULLOLICKALVEETTIL, ERRAM MURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. SURESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O PARAMU, PADINJATTINKARAMURIYIL HOUSE, ERRAM MURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O KUTTAPPAN NAIR, MAROTTUMOOTTIL VEEDU, PUTHUKKULAM, ERRAM MURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN, R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.774 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was the accused No.8 in C.C.280/1992 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. As he was absconding, case as against him was split up and re-filed as C.C.728/1995 and the remaining eight accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. As per Annexure-A3 judgment dated 24/11/1995, after examination of the de facto complainant, the two injured who turned hostile, remaining witnesses were not examined and all those accused were acquitted. Case as against the petitioner is now pending as L.P.30/1997. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Crmc 774/10 2 Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the other alleged members of the unlawful assembly and settlement of the disputes with respondents 1 to 3, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. It is submitted that as evidenced by Annexure-A4 death certificate, the other injured Yasodharan, S/o.Chathan died in 1995 and hence, even if petitioner is to be tried there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire disputes were settled and they are now living as friends with the petitioner and in such circumstances, case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Crmc 774/10 3 petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A2 final report and Annexure-A3 judgment in C.C.280/1992 show that prosecution case is that nine accused belong to RSS and de facto complainant, the injured is member of INTUC and out of political animosity, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to respondents 1 to 3 and deceased Yasodharan, on 23/6/1992 at about 5.30 p.m armed with deadly weapons, like iron pipes, sticks and swords, in furtherance of the common object caused hurt to respondents 1 to 3 and Yasodharan by inflicting injuries with sticks and swords after committing riot and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Crmc 774/10 4 Code. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that consequent to the hostility shown by the de facto complainant and the injured, other prosecution witnesses were not examined and learned Magistrate has acquitted eight of the alleged members of unlawful assembly. The only case against the petitioner, the then absconding accused, in the light of Annexure-A3 judgment, as there is no specific case of any over act as against the petitioner, there is no likelihood of a conviction, even if petitioner is to be tried. More over, affidavits filed by the respondents 1 to 3 establish that they have settled entire disputes with the petitioner and consequently, even if they are to be examined they will not give any evidence against the petitioner. The remaining injured is no more as is clear from Crmc 774/10 5 Annexure-A4 death certificates. In such circumstances, even if petitioner is to be tried, it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Hence, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.30/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.