IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 459 of 2010()
1. MR.MAMMUNHI @ MOHAMMEDKUNHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent :SRI.SIJU MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/05/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.459 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated: 17.05.2010
ORDER
The 1st accused in Crime No.764 of 2003 of Kasaragod
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
143,147,341,323 and 308 read with 149 IPC seeks to quash
Annexure A1 final report filed in the above case. The case is
now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-1),
Kasaragod as S.C.No.649/2007.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
“The petitioner and the other accused persons were
travelling in a bus being members of a marriage party.
They took exception to the conduct of the de facto
complainant who was driving an auto rickshaw in front of
the said bus without providing space for the bus to
overtake the auto rickshaw. Thereupon, the petitioner
and the other accused persons got down from the bus and
assaulted the de facto complainant (the auto rickshaw
driver) while that auto rickshaw was proceeding along the
road. The further case of the prosecution is that if the
auto rickshaw which was in motion has dashed against
Crl. M.C.No.459 of 2010
2
the electric post or the compound wall by the side of the
road, it would have endangered the life of the de facto
complainant.
3. I perused the case diary files pertaining to the matter.
There is no case for the prosecution that the auto rickshaw did
proceed further and dashed against the electric post or building
or the compound wall and thereby endangered the life of the de
facto complainant. Hence the offence punishable under Section
308 IPC is not even a remote possibility on the facts of the case.
With regard to the other offences, the de facto complainant who
is represented by counsel has settled the matter with the
petitioner. The composition with regard to Sections
323,143,147,341 and 149 IPC is recorded. It will have the effect
of acquitting the petitioner of the said offences in view of Section
320(8)Cr.P.C.
4. What now survives for consideration is the offence
punishable under Section 308 IPC. The investigation records
show that the possibility alleged for incorporating Section 308
IPC was a remote one. The auto rickshaw proceeding further
and dashing against the electric post or building or the
Crl. M.C.No.459 of 2010
3
compound wall and thereby the complainant sustaining death
was a remote possibility. Hence the incorporation of Section 308
IPC is not at all justified. The result is that S.C.No.649/2007
pending before the Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), Kasaragod, so far
as the petitioner is concerned, will stand quashed.
This Crl.M.C is accordingly allowed to the above extent.
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj