ANWAR A K Vs. ABBAS K A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second petitioner in Crime No.437 of 2006 of Bekal Police Station and L.P.C.No.110 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg seeks to quash proceedings against him for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(i) r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that between two political groups there was a clash and that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Police after investigation submitted Annexure-B, final report in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg against petitioner and seven others. Since the 5th and 6th accused were juveniles at the time of the alleged incident, final report against them was submitted in the Juvenile Justice Court, Kasaragod. Learned counsel submits, those accused were acquitted. Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 faced trial but in the meantime since the matter was settled and all the occurrence witnesses spoke against the prosecution, those accused were acquitted by Annexure-C, judgment. Since petitioner was employed in Gulf he could not face trial along with accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7. Hence the case against him was split up, refiled as C.C.No.648 of 2008 and included in the L.P register as No.110 of 2010. Prayer in this proceeding is to quash proceeding against petitioner in the light of acquittal of other accused and Annexure-D, affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the de facto complainant and injured.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that though as per the prosecution case it was a political clash, it is the first accused who is said to have used punch against the de facto complainant/respondent No.1 and that petitioner is implicated in the case on the allegation of being a member of that unlawful assembly and for allegedly threatening the de facto complainant with an urumi (a long, sword like weapon with narrow blade). There is no case that petitioner had used the urumi against the de facto complainant or anybody else. It is submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that in the light of the settlement there is no possibility of a successful prosecution as seen from Annexure-C, judgment where accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 were acquitted.