IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1626 of 2009()
1. YOOSAF.M,S/O.KASIM,AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. RAFEEQ.P.P,S/O.POKKUTTY,AGED 30 YEARS,
3. MANAF,S/O.USMAN,AGED 28 YEARS,DARUL
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KADIRUR POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/05/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.1626 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 21st day of May,2009
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in
S.C.460/2008 of Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Thalassery. They were originally
accused 1 and 5 in Crime No.151/2003 of Kadirur
Police Station. The case as against accused 2
and 3 were committed and tried by Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery in
S.C.460/2008. The said accused were acquitted
on 24.5.2008. Petitioners 1 and 2 the original
accused 1 and 5 were absconding and therefore
the case as against them and the fourth accused
was split up and refiled. When presence of
petitioners 1 and 2 were procured, the case as
against them was committed and taken to file
as S.C.460/2008.
2. The petition is filed by the two accused
Crl.M.C. 1626/2009 2
along with the de facto complainant, the injured,
under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Prosecution case is that because of political
enemity the five accused in furtherance of their
common object wrongfully restrained the third
petitioner and inflicted the injuries on him and
thereby committed offences under sections
143,147,148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with section
149 of IPC. The case of the petitioners is that
the dispute with the third petitioner was settled
and the third petitioner had not identified the
assailants and therefore there is no necessity to
continue the proceedings. Relying on the decision
of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4)
KLT 417) and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2008(3) KLT 769)it was contended
that though an offence under section 308 of IPC is
not compoundable, as no purpose will be served by
undergoing the trial the case be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were
Crl.M.C. 1626/2009 3
heard.
4. In addition to the petition, third
petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he
was examined in S.C.852/2004 whereunder the
original accused 2 and 3 were acquitted. According
to third petitioner, when examined in that case he
deposed that he could not identify the assailants
and he did not disclose the names of the assailants
to the doctor or to the police and the names were
furnished by his friends. As the case against
accused 2 and 3 already stands acquitted and the
third petitioner injured himself deposed before
the court in that case that he did not identify the
assailants and the names of the assailants was
furnished as told by the friends, no purpose will
be served by directing the Sessions Court to try
the petitioners. It would only be mere waste of
valuable time of the Court which could be utilised
for better purpose as held by the Apex Court in
Manoj Sharma’s case. In such circumstance, the
case against the petitioners in S.C.460/2008 is
Crl.M.C. 1626/2009 4
quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006