Kerala High Court
Sajeesh Kumar @ Steel Aji vs The State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2008
Author: R. Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3732 of 2008()
1. SAJEESH KUMAR @ STEEL AJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. GOPAN, AGED 26, (CW1)
3. SHIBU @ VIKKAN SHIBU (A1)
4. VINOD @ APPUKUTTAN, (A2)
5. UDHAYAN, AGED 24, (A4),S/O.USHAKARAN,
6. MADHU, AGED 28, (A5),S/O.APPUKUTTAN
7. THANSEER @ THUMBI THANSEER, (A6)
8. ASHOKAN @ KAALA ASHOKAN, (A7)
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 3rd accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 363 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC. Altogether there are seven named accused and two others. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly who in prosecution of their common objection had abducted the defacto complainant/victim, a person engaged as a salesman in a toddy shop. He was allegedly attacked with dangerous weapons resulting in injuries to the victim. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. After completing the investigation, committal proceedings has been initiated. It is at this stage, the petitioner has come with this petition praying that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19] and Nikhil Merchant V. C.B.I [ 2008 (30 KLT 769 (Standing Counsel)] may be invoked to bring to premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008 -:2:- 2nd respondent/victim has entered appearance through counsel. He confirms settlement and composition.
2. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor stoutly opposes the application. Petitioner is the accused in many cases and prosecutions are pending against him. The interest of justice will not be served by premature termination of the prosecution against the petitioner. The offences are not compoundable also, it is pointed out. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State is not satisfied that the composition is willing, voluntary and genuine. Petitioner, the State apprehends, is taking law to his hand to bring about premature termination of proceedings. In any view of the matter I am not satisfied that this is a case which can be reckoned as purely private and personal between the parties. Learned Prosecutor submits that the State may be given an opportunity to substantiate the allegations and establish the charge against the petitioner herein. Learned Public Prosecutor further points out that the case as such has not been settled. The case against the petitioner alone is said to be settled. Learned Prosecutor has taken me to Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008 -:3:- the relevant facts and submits that the interests of justce shall not be served by accepting the composition and quashing the proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The nature of evidence relied on by the prosecution reveals the adverse impact on law and order which the incident in the instance case has caused, points out the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have adverted in Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police [2008(3) KHC 713] and Santhosh v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLT 240] to the care and caution that have to be employed before applying the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19] to the facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where such quashing of proceedings ought to be resorted to by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot (supra). This, I satisfied that, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to stand trial before the Court concerned and face the prosecution.
4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Learned counsel Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008 -:4:- for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the case. Petitioner can make that request before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge must consider the same and take appropriate decision.
R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3732 OF 2008 -:6:-