IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 95 of 2011() ----------------------- CC.570/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA CRIME NO.876/2006 OF VADAKARA POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ASHARAF, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 25/06, ANUMANARI HOUSE, CHEMMARATHUR AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. VIJEESH, S/O.KUMARAN, MANAKKALMETHAL HOUSE, THODANNUR P.O., VATAKARA, PIN-673102. 2. SUNI, S/O.KINHIRAMAN, MANAKKALMEETHAL HOUSE, THODANNUR P.O., PIN-673102, VATAKARA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R3 ADV. SHRI BINU P.O. FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.95 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.876 of 2006 of Vadakara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections143, 147, 148, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioner and others assaulted respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the relevant day, time and place. Accused No.1 faced trial in C.C.No.132 of 2007 and was acquitted as the matter was settled between parties as seen from Annexure-II, judgment. Petitioner states that he was in Gulf, could not appear in court and take part in the trial. Case against petitioner is re-filed as C.C.No.570 of 2009. Now the matter is settled between him and respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have sworn Annexurs-III and IV, affidavits. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has confirmed fact of settlement and authenticity of the affidavits sworn by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are other accused persons involved in the case and to be identified and that charge sheet was filed only Crl.MC.No.95/2011 2 against petitioner and accused No.1 who were identified. It is also submitted that the area is prone to political clashes and that the incident in the case also was a political clash. 3. It is true that accused No.1 has been acquitted by Annexure-II, judgment may be because prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution. But, that is no ground to quash proceedings against petitioner who is to face trial. Nor can Annexure-II, judgment be looked into for any purpose except for the limited purpose under Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is seen that motive for the alleged incident is political rivalry. Unlawful assembly and rioting armed with deadly weapons affect public tranquility and peace of the locality. In such a situation, I do not think it is necessary to invoke power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner has to face trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner is employed abroad and that the prolonged trial might affect his job. Having regard to the circumstances stated I direct learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara to dispose of C.C.No.570 of 2009 as early as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If in the meantime petitioner has to go abroad it is open to the petitioner to move application under Crl.MC.No.95/2011 3 Section 205 of the Code and if any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as provided under law. This petition is closed with the direction made above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks