Kerala High Court
Madhu N.Nair @ Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAYOF FEBRUARY 2017/14TH MAGHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 488 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
LP.NO.20/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD.
CRIME NO. 257/2005 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
MADHU N.NAIR @ MADHU,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR,
RATNA NIVAS, MUNDANJARA ROAD,
PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 103.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.
2. RAMAKRISHNAN,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NATARAJAN,
ADHIKARI VEEDU, PALAPPURAM,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 103.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RANJITH.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
The name of the lower court ''Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad'',
occurring in the cause title of the final order dated 03/02/2017 in Crl.MC.
No.488/2017 is corrected and substituted as ''Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Ottapalam'', as per order dated 31/05/2017 in Crl.MA.
No.3867/2017.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Crl.MC.No. 488 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 03.05.2005 IN CRIME NO.257/2005 OTTAPALAM
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 10.10.2006 IN
CRIME NO. 257/2005 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2011 IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.47/2008 PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT,
PALAKKAD DIVISION AT OTTAPALAM.
ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.01.2017 EXECUTED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.No.488 of 2017
=================
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017
ORDER
Petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused along with six other accused for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code arising from Crime No.257 of 2005 of Ottappalam Police Station.
2. All the accused except the petitioner herein faced the trial in S.C.No.47 of 2008 of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division at Ottappalam, ultimately resulting in their acquittal evidenced by Annexure-A3 judgment. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and is now pending as L.P.No.20 of 2011 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam.
3. Petitioner has approached this Court contending that in the light of Annexure-A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost and a successful prosecution against the petitioner is not possible. It is further contended that the disputes with the second respondent/de facto complainant has now been settled and he is entitled for the benefit of settlement arrived at between the parties.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is not involved in any other crime and the settlement has Crl.M.C.488/17 2 now been reported to the police.
5. A reference to Annexure-A3 judgment shows that there was no incriminating materials marshalled by the prosecution against the accused who had faced the trial. Hence, they were acquitted. PWs.2 to 6 also did not support the prosecution case and they deposed that they have not seen the accused attacking PW1 and causing hurt to him. In the light of above materials, further prosecution of the petitioner herein is not likely to end in a conviction. Hence, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner. It is also to be noted that now the parties have decided to settle the disputes evidenced by Annexure-A4 affidavit. Hence, Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.
5. However, it is to be noted that the case had its origin in the year 2005 and the matter was pending till 2011 when the remaining accused faced the trial. Thereafter the case against the petitioner was included in the LP register since he was not available for long time. He has approached this Court after six years after the acquittal of the remaining accused. He has caused inordinate delay in the entire proceedings by keeping the case open till now. Hence, this is a fit case where cost is liable to be imposed on the petitioner for causing delay in judicial proceedings Crl.M.C.488/17 3 in the light of decisions reported inDamodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. ((2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663) and Padmalayam v. Sarasan and another [(2013 KHC 4242). Hence, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C.subject to cost In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed on condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) within 15 days from today to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam and report compliance.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna/3/2/17 True Copy / P A to Judge