Court allowed petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings pending against the petitioner, a split accused, as the dispute with the second respondent was settled amicably, rendering further trial futile and contrary to the interest of justice.
Petition allowed; L.P.11/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Court is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2010()
------------------------------------CRIME NO.241/2003 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. ....................
PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED
----------------------------------------
VINEESH VIJAYAN, S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADANGUMPURATHU HOUSE, THURUTHIKADU, KALLOPPARA.
BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. HARIKUMAR, GANESH BHAVAN, AMBATTUBHAGOM MURI, KALLOOPPARA.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JEPH JOSEPH.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1229 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was seventh accused in
S.C.653/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, Pathanamthitta. As petitioner and fifth accused were
absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed as S.C.254/2007. Other six accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By Annexure-A3 judgment, those accused were acquitted. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner as L.P.11/2008, contending that entire disputes with second respondent, the injured de facto complainant, were settled
2
Crmc 1229/10
amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
petitioner, second respondent and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
attitude of the second respondent, directing eight accused not to continue physical
Crmc 1229/10
3
training of RSS within the temple compound, at about 3.30 p.m on 21/8/2003, while second respondent was proceeding in a motor cycle, at
about 50 meters to the north of Komalam bridge, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of wrongfully restraining second respondent and cause his death and hurt and in furtherance of
their common object, blocked the road and thereafter beat him and kicked him and caused hurt and thereby committed the offences under
Sections 143, 147, 323 and 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Though
Annexure-A2 final report shows that as per the wound certificate issued by the doctor, after examination of the second respondent, it only discloses that there was tenderness on the left shoulder and abdomen. Offence under Section
Crmc 1229/10
4
308 of Indian Penal Code is alleged on the
allegation that if second respondent had not avoided the kick on his lower abdomen, death would have been caused. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that when six of the eight accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and second respondent de facto complainant was examined, he even denied the statement in the first information and did not give any evidence
against any of the accused. So also, the two
eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that finding that there was no incriminating evidence warranting questioning the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted those accused. Joint statement filed by the second respondent with the petitioner establish
Crmc 1229/10
5
that there has been settlement of all the disputes with the petitioner. Consequently, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial and second respondent is to be examined, there is no likelihood of an incriminating evidence against him. In such circumstances, it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court. Petition is allowed. L.P.11/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I),
Pathanamthitta is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties.
Whether continuation of prosecution is in the interest of justice given the settlement and lack of incriminating evidence.
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC should be allowed to prevent waste of court time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VINEESH VIJAYAN
STATE OF KERALA
HARIKUMAR
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
