High Court Kerala High Court

Harikumar vs Thankachan on 29 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Harikumar vs Thankachan on 29 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2010()


1. HARIKUMAR, S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THANKACHAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SURESH, AGED 35 YEARS,

3. VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :29/03/2010

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ------------------------------------------
            CRL.M.C.NO.774 OF 2010
           ------------------------------------------
            Dated 29th March 2010


                         O R D E R

Petitioner was the accused No.8 in

C.C.280/1992 on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. As he

was absconding, case as against him was

split up and re-filed as C.C.728/1995 and

the remaining eight accused were tried by

the learned Magistrate. As per

Annexure-A3 judgment dated 24/11/1995,

after examination of the de facto

complainant, the two injured who turned

hostile, remaining witnesses were not

examined and all those accused were

acquitted. Case as against the petitioner

is now pending as L.P.30/1997. Petition is

filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Crmc 774/10
2

Procedure to quash the case as against the

petitioner contending that in view of the order

of acquittal against the other alleged members

of the unlawful assembly and settlement of the

disputes with respondents 1 to 3, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution. It is submitted that as evidenced

by Annexure-A4 death certificate, the other

injured Yasodharan, S/o.Chathan died in 1995

and hence, even if petitioner is to be tried

there is no likelihood of a successful

prosecution.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through

a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating

that entire disputes were settled and they are

now living as friends with the petitioner and

in such circumstances, case is to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

Crmc 774/10
3

petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and learned

Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. Annexure-A2 final report and

Annexure-A3 judgment in C.C.280/1992 show that

prosecution case is that nine accused belong to

RSS and de facto complainant, the injured is

member of INTUC and out of political animosity,

accused formed themselves into an unlawful

assembly with the common object of causing hurt

to respondents 1 to 3 and deceased Yasodharan,

on 23/6/1992 at about 5.30 p.m armed with

deadly weapons, like iron pipes, sticks and

swords, in furtherance of the common object

caused hurt to respondents 1 to 3 and

Yasodharan by inflicting injuries with sticks

and swords after committing riot and thereby

committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148

and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal

Crmc 774/10
4

Code. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that

consequent to the hostility shown by the de

facto complainant and the injured, other

prosecution witnesses were not examined and

learned Magistrate has acquitted eight of the

alleged members of unlawful assembly. The only

case against the petitioner, the then

absconding accused, in the light of

Annexure-A3 judgment, as there is no specific

case of any over act as against the petitioner,

there is no likelihood of a conviction, even if

petitioner is to be tried. More over,

affidavits filed by the respondents 1 to 3

establish that they have settled entire

disputes with the petitioner and consequently,

even if they are to be examined they will not

give any evidence against the petitioner. The

remaining injured is no more as is clear from

Crmc 774/10
5

Annexure-A4 death certificates. In such

circumstances, even if petitioner is to be

tried, it would only result in unnecessary

waste of valuable time of the court. Hence, it

is not in the interest of justice to continue

the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. L.P.30/1997 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,

Pathanamthitta is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.