Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER20142ND KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 6013 of 2014 () --------------------------- IN SC4432010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK - III, MANJERI CRIME NO. 159/2010 OF TANUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ NASEER S/O.SAIDALAVI, KAMMUTTAKATH HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR AMSOM UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682031 THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. FAIJAS S/O.SAID MOHAMMED, PADINHAREYIL HOUSE NIRAMARUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676109. R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (K/489/2011) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2410-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 6013 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.159/2010 OF THE TANUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN S.CNO.443/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK NO.III, MANJERI, DATED229.2014 ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE2D RESPONDENT DATED, 18.10.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PATO JUDGE sab P.UBAID, J.
----------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 6013 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2014. ORDER
The petitioner herein is the original 9th accused in crime No.159 of 2010 of the Tanur Police Station. On the final report submitted by the police in the said crime, congnizance was taken in the court of Session Manjeri as S.C4432010 against nine accused. The case against the petitioner herein was not committed at that time. The nine accused in C.C No.443/10 faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri, and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 22.9.2014, when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement arived at out of court.
2. Annexure III is the copy of the judgment in S.C No.443/2010. The case against the petiitoner herein was later committed, and it is now pending as S.C5502013 before the same court. He seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the prosecution on the ground that nobody will support the prosecution in view of the compromise arrived at out of court, and that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose.
3. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records I find that continuance of prosecuiton as against the petitioner herein in the present circumstances will be a sheer waste of time. In S.C4432010 Crl. M.C No. 6013 of 2014 2 against the other nine acccused, all the material witnesses turned against the prosecution, and nobody supported the prosecution. Even the witness who sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident turned hostile in view of the settlement arrived at out court. The offences involved are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 427 IPC. I find that none of the material witnesses will support the prosecution in case, the case against the petiitoner herein goes to trial. No doubt, such a trial will be a sheer waste of time. In so many decisions inclding Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT108(SC)] and Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another [2014 (2) KLJ252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. In this case there are two grounds to close the proecution. One is that all the other accused stand acquitted by the trial court when the material witnesses turned hostile. The other ground is that the parties have really settled the whole dispute out of court. I find that the prosecution as against the petiitoenr herein can be closed, because continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the trial court. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in SC5502013 of the thrid Additional Sessions Crl. M.C No. 6013 of 2014 3 Court, Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the peititoner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged. P.UBAID, JUDGE sab