Rajesh K.V. v. Muhammed Sabith

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2015/4TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 5207 of 2014 --------------------------- CP 22/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 743/2004 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. .........

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

----------------------------------- RAJESH K.V., S/O.RAJAN, AGED 34 YEARS, P.O NARATH, KANNUR - 670 601.

BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. MUHAMMED SABITH, POTTAN VALAPPIL KEELATH PUTHIYA PURAYIL, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 37 YEARS, FATHIMA MANZIL, NARATH P.O, NARATH AMSOM DESOM - 670 607.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

Crl.MC.No. 5207 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1.

PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12.2.2007. ANNEXURE A2.

ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.08.2014.

ANNEXURE A3.

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC 112/2011 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DIVISION DATED 12.8.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

- NIL --------------------------------------------- TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

----------------------------- --------------------------------- th day of May, 2015.

Dated this the 25

O R D E R

th accused in Crime The petitioner herein was the original 10 No.743/2004 of Valapattanam Police Station for offences registered under 143, 147, 436 & 427 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 2008. Political rivalry between the accused persons and defacto complainant appears to be the motive for the genesis of the crime. The petitioner, who was accused No.10 and another accused (A6) were not available for trial and the trial against the remaining eight accused had proceeded in S.C.No.1/2008 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. After detailed trial all the accused were acquitted as per judgment in S.C.No.1/2008. Later, the trial as against one among the two other remaining accused (A6 in the Cime) had proceeded as per S.C.No.112/2011 on the file of the said Sessions Court. The court below found that there was absolutely no evidence to connect the said accused with the offence and accordingly acquitted accused No.6 in the crime as per Annexure-3 judgment in S.C.No.112/2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The defacto complainant has also settled the

::2::

matter with the petitioner and he has sworn to Annexure-A2 affidavit produced before this Court stating that the matter has been settled st respondent defacto complainant has no between them and that the 1 objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It is the light of these aspects the petitioner has sought the prayer for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. 2.

Heard Sri.Ramesh Chander, senior counsel, instructed by Aneesh Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and st respondentSri.V.Tek Chand, learned counsel appearing for the 1 defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for nd respondent.

the 2 3.

The petitioner has reiterated his submissions in the Crl.M.C. Sri.V.Tek Chand, learned counsel for the defacto complainant has st respondent has no objection in granting the submitted that the 1 prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and that the matter has been settled and in view of the acquittal of the co-accused, no meaningful purpose will be subserved in the conduct the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

4.

On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is seen from Annexure-A3 judgment that

::3::

the court below after trial found that CW1 was not available for trial as he was abroad. All the independent witnesses PWs 1 to 3 were examined, who did not support the prosecution case and that they deposed before the court that they did not see the incident and that they had not given the statement before the police etc. In this view of the matter, the court below also found that CW2, the remaining witness are reported to be dead and the available evidence of PWs 1 to 3 did not reveal any incriminating evidence against the accused and accordingly acquitted the above said co-accused in the case. Moreover, the matter st respondent-defacto has been settled as between the petitioner and 1 complainant.

On a perusal of Annexure-A3 judgment, it is seen that the substratum of prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-accused. In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2006 (1) KLT 552 (FB), and in Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala reported in 2011 (2) KHC 812 and in Abbas v. State of Kerala reported in 2013 (2) KLT 976 =2013 KHC 336 the prayer for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings could be considered in this case.

::4::

criminal proceedings.

5.

Accordingly it is ordered in the interest of justice that impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner as per AnnexureA1 Final Report/Charge sheet filed in Crime No.743/2014 of Valapattanam Police Station which has led to the pendency of C.P.No.22/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtII, Kannur and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the court below concerned.

With these observations and directions, this Crl.M.C stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

bkn/-