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. 1809 of 2014 () --------------------------- IN SC3042010 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY IN CP942001 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ,MATTANNUR CRIME NO. 345/2000 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANATH KUMAR S/O BALAN NAMBIAR, SREELAKSHMI, HOUSE KEEZHOR KEEZHOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT& STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRITTY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. * ADDITIONAL R2 & R3 IMPLEADED Addl.2. SRI.KAITHERI PUTHALATHU PRAKASHAN S/O DAMODARAN, KEEZHUR AMSOM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN67070 Addl.3. MEPPAD HAREENDRAN S/O KUNHANANDAN KEEZHUR AMSOM, IRITTY KANNUR DIST. 670703 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED2803.2014 IN CRL.M.A288514 IN CRL.M.C180914 R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE. P. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2410-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1809 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED1012.2000 OF S.I. OF POLICE IRITTY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JFCM MATTANNUR IN CR.NO.345/2000. ANNEXURE2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMITTAL ORDER
DATED199.2002 IN C.P.94/2001 POF JFCM MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED231.2008 IN SC.587/2003 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT ADHOC-III, THALASSERY. ANNEXURE4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED96.2010 IN C.P.28/2010 OF JFCM MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE5 COPY OF THE SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER IN S.C.304/2010 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ADHOC-III. ANNEXURE6 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN S.C.587/2003 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC-III THALASSERY. ANNEXURE7 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN S.C.587/2003 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COUT, ADHOC-III THALASSERY. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PATO JUDGE sab P.UBAID, J.
----------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1809 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2014. ORDER
The petitioner herein is the original 6th accused in crime No.345/2010 of the Iritty Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, and 307 IPC. Case against the other accused in the crime was committed to the court of Session, where cognizance was taken as S.C5872003. The case against the petitioner herein was split up in the committal court when he absconded during the trial process. His case was later committed to the court of Session, and it is now pending as S.C3042010 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc III), Thalassery. Crime in the case was registered on the complaint of one Hareendran who is the additional second respondent herein. The other accused faced trial in S.C No.587/2003, and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C when the every material witnesses turned hostile during trial. The trial court examined the defacto complainant Hareendran and the sole eye witness Sasidharan in S.C No. 587/2003. None of these witnesses supported the prosecution during trial. An amicable settlement was reported, but it was not Crl. M.C No. 1809 of 2014 2 acceptable because the major offence is not compoundable under the law. Now, the petitioner seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the prosecution on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have come to terms amicably out of court, and that, in the above circumstances, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the prosecution against him, when none of the material witnesses including the defacto complainant would in any manner support the prosecution.
2. Annexure III judgment in S.C58703 shows that the defacto complainant Hareendran and the sole eye witness cited by the prosecution turned hostile during trial in S.C58703. No doubt, these two witnesses will not in any manner support the prosecution, if the case against the petitioner herein goes to trial. Moreover, there is an amicable settlement also. In the main case also the witnesses turned hostile in view of a settlement arrived at out of court. In so many decisions including 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, if the parties have really settled the whole Crl. M.C No. 1809 of 2014 3 dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. In this case I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute. The defacto complainant has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute amicably with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint now. I find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will be a sheer waste of time. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in S.C3042010 of the third Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery will stand quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged. P.UBAID, JUDGE sab