IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1053 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.9/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, KANAKKALTHIRUTHI, KARUVAI, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.814/2008) 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1053 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is first accused in Crime No.814 of 2008 of Vadakkancherry Police Station (in Palakkad District) and accused in C.C.No.59A of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur for offences punishable under Secs.324, 326 and 290(b) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioner along with his wife, the second accused caused hurt/grievous hurt to the de facto complainant/PW1 by pouring formic acid on his face on 13.11.2008. The second accused, wife of petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.9 of 2009 and was acquitted under Sec.248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) in view of the nature of the evidence let in by PWs.1 to 5 examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. Since petitioner was not available for trial at that time, case against him was refiled as C.C.No.59A of 2010. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him in C.C.No.59A of 2010 in view of Annexure-VII, judgment acquitting the second accused in the light of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and settlement allegedly reached with PW1, the de facto complainant. I have heard Crl.M.C.No.1053 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen from Annexure-VII, judgment of learned Magistrate that second accused was acquitted under Sec.248(1) of the Code as prosecution was not able to produce any evidence which did not even require questioning of second accused under Sec.313 of the Code. It is seen from paragraph 4 of the judgment dealing with point numbers 1 and 2 that it came out from PW1, the de facto complainant that he settled the dispute with the accused (referring to the second accused) and that he has no further grievance in the matter. He gave a go by to Ext.P1 (in that case) first information allegedly given by him and failed to identify the accused though, he claimed that on 13.11.2005 owing to dispute he was attacked with formic acid. PWs.2 to 5 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. None of them supported the prosecution and denied witnessing the incident. In view of the evidence given by PWs.1 to 5 and “owing to amicable to settlement” learned Law Officer who was conducting the case gave up the remaining witness. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Annexures- II to VI, copy of deposition of PWs.1 to 5. PWs.2 to 5 denied witnessing the alleged incident. So far as PW1, the de facto complainant is concerned, he went a step further and claimed Crl.M.C.No.1053 of 2011 -: 3 :- that accused 1 and 2 (petitioner is accused 1) are known to him but, they have not caused any hurt to him. That statement of PW1 destroys the substratum of prosecution case against petitioner. In view of that stand of PW1/de facto complainant, it is not necessary to continue prosecution against petitioner since that would only be a wasteful exercise. 3. I have to refer to the manner in which prosecution against the second accused was conducted. Witnesses, one by one mounted to the witness box to turn hostile. The Law Officer who conducted prosecution did not take the pain to get permission of the Court to confront PWs.1 to 5 with their previous statements and put leading questions to them as provided under law. May be, parties had settled the dispute. But having regard to the serious nature of offence allegedly committed and PW1, the de facto complainant admitting that he was attacked on the relevant day, the Law Officer should have discharged his responsibility by atleast making an attempt to bring out the necessary materials from PWs.1 to 5 by confronting them with their previous statements and putting leading questions to them. The manner in which prosecution witnesses were dealt with by the Law Officer in a serious case, to say the least, is distressing. Crl.M.C.No.1053 of 2011 -: 4 :- 4. In the light of Annexure-VII, judgment and the stand of PWs.2 to 5 as seen from Annexures-II to VI and in particular the version of the de facto complainant that neither petitioner nor second accused has caused any hurt to him, I am inclined to think that the proceeding with the case against petitioner is only a wasteful exercise. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and proceeding against petitioner (first accused in Crime No.814 of 2008 of Vadakkancherry Police Station) in C.C.No.59A of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur is quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-