Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2077 of 2013 C --------------------------- SC 367/2009 NOW PENDING AS L.P. NO. 7 OF 201.of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2.1. SHAJI, S/O THANKACHAN, PULLAMVELIL HOUSE NEAR MOSCO JUNCTION, PATUKOTTIKKALMURIYIL PANTHALAM, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE 2 SIDASIVANPILLAI @ AJI, S/O KUTTAPPAKURUP, SREEVILASAM HOUSE NEAR AMBEDKAR COLONY, PATUKOTTIKKALMURIYIL PANTHALAM THEKKAKKARA VILLAGE BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 3 2. SABJAKHAN, AGED 4 YEARS S/O ISMAIL RAWTHAR, BISMILLA COTTAGE, TONNALLUR MURI PANTHALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA 68950 R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2077 of 2013 --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 66.OF 200.OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED AND AFFIRMING THAT 2 D RESPONDENT HAS NO OBJECTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEING QUASHED BASING ON SETTLEMENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ks. TRUE COPY ` P.S. TO JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2077 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2013 ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in L.P.No.7/12 on the file of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Pathanamthitta where the offence alleged against them are under Sections 332, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Now the case of petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the de facto complainant who is the second respondent herein. The counsel appearing for the second respondent also submitted that the matter is settled out of court. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not proper to record the settlement and acquit the accused considering the seriousness of the offence involved in the case.
2. I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and as well as the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The further allegation is that accused No.1 drove a Maruthi car bearing registration not KL-4-P-501 through Kottayam-Kottarakkara M.C. road in a rash and negligent manner and hit two pedestrians, who were standing in front of Crl.M.C.No.2077 o”
2. Adoor private bus stand. The further allegation is that the accused drove away the car after the occurrence in spite of the fact that the second respondent given lawful direction to stop the vehicle. It is also the allegation that A1 had allegedly assaulted the second respondent herein with hands and second accused hit the second respondent/de facto complainant with a rod. Thus the accused obstructed the official duty of the second respondent and thus thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 332, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Now the case of the petitioners is that the case is settled with the second respondent who is the de facto complainant a police personal. But the allegation is that the accused No.1 driven the car in a rash and negligent manner as the result of it the car hit two pedestrians who were standing in front of Adoor private bus stand. The real aggrieved person has so far not come forwarded with the settlement. In the above circumstances, according to me, this is not a fit case to acquit the accused following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 10.(SC). Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and Crl.M.C.No.2077 o”
3. accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN Judge mns/