High Court Kerala High Court

Jose James vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jose James vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1344 of 2009()


1. JOSE JAMES, S/O.JAMES, MATTATHOPPU
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JOSE GEORGE, S/O.ELIAS,
3. PAUL, S/O. WILFRED, NEDUMTHOPPIL

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHAJI MANUEL, S/O.MANUEL,

3. ANIL ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY AGED 34 YEARS

4. RAJU,S/O. HENRY AGED 40 YEARS,

5. EJIN,S/O. FRANCIS ,AGED 38 YEARS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :24/06/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No. 1344     OF 2009
            ===========================

       Dated this the 24th day of June,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioners were accused 15,21, and 22 in Crime

No.134/1995 of Sakthikulangara Police Station. The

case as against accused 1,2,3,7,9,13,15,16,18,20, 21

and 22 were refiled and committed to the Sessions

Court as per order in C.P.11/1996 and taken on file as

C.C.881/2003. In S.C.131/1996, after trial all the

said accused were acquitted. In S.C.881/2003 accused 2

and 7 were tried and the case as against accused 1,3,6

and 8 to 11 were refiled as they were absconding.

Accused 2 and 7 in S.C.881/2003 were acquitted as Pws.1

to 3 alone were examined and they did not support the

prosecution and the Prosecutor had given up all the

other witnesses as all of them had turned hostile.

The case as against the petitioners are now pending as

S.C.1286/2007 on the file of Additional Assistant

Sessions Court, Kollam. This petition is filed under

section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

case as against them contending that in view of the

settlement of the disputes with the injured no purpose

Crl.M.C.1344/2009 2

will be served by directing the petitioners to undergo the

ordeal of a trial. Annexure B agreement executed by the

injured is also produced to establish that there was a

settlement of disputes.

2. Second respondent filed a separate affidavit stating

that the dispute arose regarding the selling of ice at

Sakthikulangara Fishing Harbour and all those issues were

later amicably settled and there is no dispute now with

the accused and they have no grievance against the

petitioners herein and they are not interested in

prosecuting them further and therefore they have no

objection for quashing the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted

that there was a settlement of disputes with the

prosecution witnesses and the witnesses turned hostile

when the case was tried in S.C.131/1996 as well as

S.C.881/2003.

5. Though the offences alleged against the petitioners

include an offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code

and as held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State

(2008(4) KLT 417 (SC), such an offence cannot be quashed

invoking the powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure special circumstance of the case establish that

Crl.M.C.1344/2009 3

even if petitioners are to be tried it will not yield any

conviction. When the original accused were tried in

S.C.131/1996, all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile

and therefore learned Sessions Judge was compelled to

acquit the accused. Later when two of the other absconding

accused were tried in S.C.881/2003, the same drama was

enacted and therefore Public Prosecutor did not examine the

prosecution witnesses except Pws. 1 to 3, who turned

hostile. In such circumstance, even if it is to be taken

that the case is not quashed and petitioners are tried by

the Assistant Sessions Judge, in the light of the further

development and the acquittal of the other accused in view

of the hostility of the prosecution witnesses, there is no

chance of a successful prosecution. In such circumstance,

if petitioners are to be tried, it would only result in

unnecessary waste of the valuable time of the court.

Therefore in the interest of justice the case is to be

quashed.

Petition is allowed. S.C.1286/2007 on the file of

Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam as against the

petitioners is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006