Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3465 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN SC 624/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN CP 33/2011 of JUDL.M.F.C.-I, ERNAKULAM CRIME No.1806/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM: ---------------------------------------------- RAGHUPATHY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LASSAR, R.K. NIVAS, KONDATTU MUKKU, ST.SEBASTIAN ROAD, MANJUMMEL ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.RAJESH SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1.REPRESENTEDOFBYKERALA, THE STATE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031. 2.PALARIVATTOM THE SUB INSPECOTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682024. 3.ERNAKULAM INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE CIRCLETOWN NORTH CIRCLE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. 4.D/O. RUKSANA ALIAS SONA, AGED 28 YEARS, APPACHADAS, ATHIPPOZHI VEEDU, MUNDAMEVELI DESOM, RAMESHWARAM VILLAGE, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM NOW RESIDING AT AROOR KOCHIPALLI BHAGOM, DEVASYA'S VETTIL, AROOR -685 534. Crl.MC.No. 3465 of 2013 (B) 5.S/O ARUN ALIAS ANSARI, AGED 27 YEARS, ABDUL MANAF, PALAMTHODIYIL VEEDU, KURUVAMOZHI P.O., KORATTI DESOM, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLI TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6.S/O ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 28 YEARS, BASHEER, PUTRHAPURAKKAL VEEDU, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPILLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7.S/O LINS V SUNNY, AGED 25 YEARS, SUNNY, VADAKKEDATH VEEDU, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., PORIYANMALAKARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPILLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU JAMES R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL R5, R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI VADAKKEDAN R 1 TO 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3465 of 2013 (B) ------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------- ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CIRME No.1806/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. ----------------------- True copy P.A. to Judge V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.3465 of 2013 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of September, 2013 ORDER
The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and victim in Crime No.1806 of 2010 of Palarivattom Police Station, wherein the offences involved are under Sections 364(A), 120(b) and 34 of IPC.
2. The above crime is registered at the instance of the petitioner, wherein the allegation is that, the petitioner herein was the manager of Royal Furnishing Shope, a furniture shop at Ernakulam. The respondent No.4 herein, the first accused, had made the petitioner believe that she require furniture from his shop. Pursuant to that commercial transaction regarding selling of furniture, on 20/9/2010, the 5th respondent herein (second accused) invited and brought the petitioner herein to the house bearing door No.26/377 situated at Edappally Toll. Thereafter in pursuance of common intention to claim ransom by detaining the petitioner the respondents 4 to 7 (the accused) detained the petitioner herein in that house Crl.M.C.No.3465 of 2013 :-2-: by threatening the petitioner that they will take nude photographs of the petitioner herein and the 4th respondent herein and will publish the same in the internet and demanded Rupees Two lakhs as ransom. Thereupon the petitioner herein obtained `1,85,000/- from one Raju and handed it over to the 5th respondent herein (second accused). Thereafter the 6th and 7th respondents misused the ATM card belonging to the petitioner herein by obtaining its PIN number by threatening him and on 27/9/2010 and 28/9/2010 drew a total amount of `20,000/- from ATM counters using that ATM card. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the above case, the accused settled the matter with the petitioner and as such he is not interested in prosecuting against the accused, who are respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner/de facto complainant has also sworn into an affidavit dated 17/8/2013 to the above effect.
3. If the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, does not want to prosecute the accused and overlooking the above stand of the de facto complainant, if the trial stand, Crl.M.C.No.3465 of 2013 :-3-: there will not be any fruitful turn out, rather it will be resulted in sheer waste of judicial time. Therefore, according to me, even though the offences alleged are not compoundable, considering the subsequent development and settlement arrived and following the decisions reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another [2012(4)KLT 108], Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [2008(2)KHC 589], Jose and others Vs. Jojo Antony [2009(3)KHC 157], this Crl.M.C. can be allowed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed quashing Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.1806 of 2010 of Palarivattom Police Station and all further proceedings against the accused/respondents 4 to 7 in S.C.No.624 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Ernakulam. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj