Kerala High Court
Prakash @ Parashanth vs The State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 7149 of 2014
-------------------------
IN CC 991/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 8/2007 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 6 & 7:
------------------------
1. PRAKASH @ PARASHANTH,
S/O KUNJUMON, ASHABHAVANAM VEEDU,
THUNDATHUMALA,
ANGADICKAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK.
2. ANOOP,
S/O SAHADEVAN, CHARIVU PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU,
NEAR GOVT. I.T.I., CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE
CHENGANNUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
-----------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM-682031
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7149 of 2014
------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
------------------------
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE ARANMULA POLICE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE JUFIDIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ab
P.UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.7149 of 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the original accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C No.543/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pathanamthitta. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 326, 324, 323, 427 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint of one Salin. The accused Nos.1 to 5 faced trial before the learned Magistrate in C.C No.543/2007 and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when all the material witnesses including the first informant turned hostile to the prosecution. The case against the petitioners herein was split up and refiled as C.C No.991/2012 when they remained consistently absent during trial. Now they seek orders quashing the prosecution as against them on the ground that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Annexure II judgment in C.C No.543/2007 shows that the prosecution examined four witnesses in the said case and marked Exts.P1 first information Crl.M.C No.7149 of 2014 2 statement. But the defacto complainant Salin and the other material witnesses did not in any manner support the prosecution. The judgment shows that they turned hostile in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court. In such a situation, it is definite that continuance of prosecution against the petitioners herein will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. The prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioners herein, and the witnesses cannot in any manner support the prosecution, if the case against the petitioners goes to trial.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein, in C.C No.991/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pathanamthitta will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab