IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5017 of 2010 --------------------------------------- LP.7/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ............ PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: LATHEEF @ ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MUHAMMED BAPPU, ATHANIKKAL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHALAPPURAM, P.O.THEKKEVAVANOOR, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN-679 533. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. SANTHA,W/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, (AGED 42 YEARS), PADINJHAPURATH HOUSE,P.O.THEKKEVAVANOOR, CHANDHNAPADI,NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679533. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.SHEEJA FOR R1 PP SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5017 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the third accused in S.C.No. 706/2007 on the file of Sessions Court, Palakkad. As he was absconding, case against him was split up and refiled. Accused 1 and 2 were tried. By Annexure-F judgment, those accused were acquitted. Case against the petitioner is now pending as L.P. No.7/2010 before Sessions Court, Palakkad. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acquittal against accused 1 and 2 and settlement of the disputes with the first respondent, the defacto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and she has no CRMC 5017/10 2 subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case, as is clear from Annexure- D final report and Annexure-F judgment in S.C.No. 706/2007, is that petitioner, along with two other accused, who are non Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe group, wrongfully restrained first respondent, a member of the Scheduled Caste and caused voluntary hurt to her and also abused her. First accused used criminal force with the intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Annexure-F judgment shows that after trial, accused CRMC 5017/10 3 1 and 2 were already acquitted. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that even if petitioner is directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, no purpose will be served, except wasting the valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.7/2010 on the file of Sessions Court, Palakkad is quashed. 22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv