IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 157 of 2010()
1. SHAIJU, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SWATHI SUNDER, AGED 21,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.157 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner was the third accused in S.C.No.
609/2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. As accused 2 and 3 were absconding,
the case as against them was split up and refiled as
S.C.No.1247/2009. Accused 1 and 4 were tried by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. By Annexure-B
judgment, those accused were acquitted. Prosecution
case is that on 19.7.2004 at about 7 a.m., with the
object of committing rape on the second respondent,
first accused enticed her by promising to marry her and
with the knowledge of the fourth accused and assistance
of accused 2 and 3, kidnapped her in car KL-02/B 502,
belonging to the first accused and driven by the
petitioner, brought her to a thatched shed at
Kottavasal of Schencottah Taluk and first accused
committed rape on her. Thereafter, fourth accused,
knowing that first accused committed rape on the second
respondent, brought the first accused and second
respondent in Tata India car driven by him to House No.
AP.11/132 and from there also, first accused committed
rape on the second respondent and all the accused,
CRMC 157/10 2
thereby, committed offences under Sections 212, 363 and
376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This
petition is filed by the original third accused to
quash the proceedings as against him contending that
entire disputes with the second respondent were settled
and the prosecution case is fictitious and even if
petitioner is tried, there is no likelihood of a
conviction and in such circumstances, the case is to be
quashed.
2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel
and field an affidavit stating that entire disputes
between her and the first accused were settled amicably
and first accused had married her and she is now living
as the wife of the first accused and the defacto
complainant Sunder, her father, is no more and in such
circumstances, the case is to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Prosecution case is that first accused
kidnapped the second respondent with the aid and
assistance of accused 2 to 4 and committed rape on her
and thereby, all the accused committed the offences.
First accused, who allegedly committed rape on the
CRMC 157/10 3
second respondent, later married the second respondent
and they are now living as husband and wife. Accused 1
and 4 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge and by Annexure-B judgment, they were acquitted.
In view of the order of acquittal as against accused 1
and 4, what remains as against the petitioner is that
he aided and assisted the first accused to kidnap the
second respondent and to commit rape on her. When,
based on the evidence, learned Additional Sessions
Judge found that there is no evidence to find that the
accused committed either kidnapping or rape, even if
petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a
trial, in the light of Annexure-C affidavit filed by
the second respondent, there is no likelihood of a
successful prosecution. At best, it would result only
in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In
such circumstances, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. S.C.No.1247/2009 on the file
of Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as
against the petitioner is quashed.
17th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv