IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 5034 of 2010()
1. RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, KARAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. VINOD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JAYARAJ,
3. BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPALAN,
4. SUMESH, AGED 32 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :SRI.C.D.DILEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.5034 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.8 in Crime No.516 of 2001 of Mathilakam Police
Station and C.P.No.8 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kodungallur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case is that on 23.09.2001 at about 7 p.m. petitioner and others
came to the scene of occurrence in an autorickshaw and assaulted CWs 1 to 3
with sword. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him in the light of a
settlement reached with respondent Nos. 2 to 4, acquittal of accused No.2 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II (Adhoc), Thrissur for
want of evidence and acquittal of the remaining accused by learned Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are represented by counsel. I have heard
learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor who also confirmed the fact
of settlement between petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. It is seen that all the accused other than petitioner and accused
No.7 faced trial in different courts and for want of evidence they were acquitted.
This is not disputed by the prosecution as well. While so, claiming settlement
and seeking acquittal accused No.7 approached this Court with
Crl.MC No.5034/2010
2
Crl.M.C.No.2752 of 2005 and this Court by order dated September 1, 2005
allowed that petition holding that asking accused No.7 to face the trial will be a
waste of the valuable time of court. The proceeding against him was quashed.
4. There is no reason why I should take a different stand with respect
to the petitioner who is similarly placed. Annexures-A7 to A9 are the affidavits
sworn by respondent Nos.2 to 4, the defacto complainant and injured in the
incident. The affidavits show that the matter has been settled between the
parties. In that situation I am inclined to interfere under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A1, final report in Crime
No.516 of 2001 of Mathilakam Police Station, cognizance taken against
petitioner/accused No.8 and proceedings against petitioner in C.P.No.8 of 2010
of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur are quashed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks