IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1522 of 2009()
1. SIVAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. RADHA, W/O.SOMARAJAN,
3. DILEEP, SINDHU BHAVAN,
4. SOMARAJAN, SINDHU BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
====================
Crl.M.C. No. 1522 of 2009-C
====================
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009.
O R D E R
Petitioner is first accused in S.C.No.127/1997 on the
file of Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam. As he was
absconding, the case as against him was split up and
accused 2 to 5 were tried. Under Annexure 4 judgment
dated 17-2-2003, Sessions Judge acquitted other accused of
all the offences, under Section 235 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings relying on
the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v.
State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC). Along with the
petition, Annexures 6 and 7, affidavits of the injured, were
produced to show that there was an amicable settlement of
disputes with the injured and petitioner and petitioner
sought to quash the proceedings.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and
learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
Crl.M.C.No.1522/2009-C
-2-
3. Argument of the learned Counsel relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State
of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC) is that when the dispute is
settled with the injured and there is no chance of a
successful prosecution in view of the settlement as well as
in view of the acquittal of the co-accused, no fruitful
purpose will be achieved by undergoing the ordeal of trial
and in such circumstances the case is to be quashed.
Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 also
supported the petitioner.
4. As is clear from Annexure 2 final report as well as
Annexure 4 judgment in S.C.No.127/1997, the offences
alleged against the petitioner includes an offence under
Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. In the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008
(4) KLT 417 SC) an offence under Section 307 of Indian
Penal Code cannot be quashed for the reason of settlement
of the dispute with the injured applying the principles in
Madan Mohan Aboot’s case (supra). Therefore the prayer
Crl.M.C.No.1522/2009-C
-3-
for quashing of the case cannot be allowed for the reason of
settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and the
injured.
5. The fact that co-accused was acquitted under
Annexure 4 judgment, on the evidence of the case recorded
therein is not a ground to quash the case as against the
petitioner. Whether the witnesses would give evidence
against petitioner is to be decided in this case. It cannot be
decided based on the evidence in S.C.No.127/1997.
Therefore petition can only be dismissed. I do so.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner then
submitted that there may be a direction to the Sessions
Court to dispose the case expeditiously. If petitioner makes
himself available for trial and applies for an expeditious
disposal of the case, Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Kollam, to dispose the case without delay.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
dkr