Haris vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash Annexure A1 final report against the petitioner in Crime No. 524 of 2002 of Payyannur Police Station, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur as L.P. 21 of 2008.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 524 of 2002 of Payyannur Police Station. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. There are five accused in the final report. The crime was registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by one Madhusoodhanan, driver of bus bearing Registration No. KRN.399. It is alleged that while the said Madhusoodhanan was driving the bus, accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object intercepted the bus, assaulted and injured him and also caused damage to the bus.

Annexure A2, copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 150 of 2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur indicates that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had faced trial and were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. In the said proceedings informant Madhusoodhanan was examined as PW4; other occurrence witnesses were also examined. Even though he had prooved the First Information Statement marked as Exhibit P1, he turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that he cannot identify any of the assailants. He also stated that the matter has been settled out of Court. The learned Magistrate has further noted that eye witnesses could not identify the assailants. Thus accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were found not guilty and acquitted and the case against accused Nos. 1 and 5 who remained absconding was refilled as C.C. No. 577 of 2005. The Magistrate had also observed that the case against A1 and A5, who did not face trial is wholly false. Thus the Magistrate ordered to seek permission for omitting the case from the register and returns, as provided under Rule 16 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. However Annexure A3 judgment indicates that the 5th accused had faced trial. There also the said Madhusoodhanan was examined as PW1; then also he could not identify the assailants and was declared hostile to the prosecution. The learned Magistrate who passed the Annexure A3 judgment also has observed that the matter is settled between the parties.

The remaining accused who did not face trial is the petitioner, the 1St accused, against whom case stands refiled as LP 21 of 2008. Now warrant is pending against him.

From Annexure A2 and A3 judgments it is eminently clear that both the Magistrates who tried the case found that the case is settled between the parties. The informant and injured who gave evidence in both the cases has stated before Court that he cannot identify the assailants and that the matter is settled. In the circumstances, even if the petitioner, 1st accused is directed to face trial, that would be a futile exercise. Therefore all proceedings taken against the petitioner pursuant to crime No. 524 of 2002 of Payyannur Police Station are liable to be quashed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.