NOUSHAD @ KUDA NOUSHAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the 5th accused in Crime No.8/1995 of Binanipuram police station to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1242/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, on the ground that co- accused were acquitted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as 5th accused in Crime No.8/1995 of Binanipuram police station on the basis of the statement given by the defacto-complainant, alleging that the petitioner along with four other persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and inflicted injuries on CWs 1 to 3 and also caused damage to the articles and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, where it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.220/2000. Since the petitioner was working abroad in connection with his employment, he did not appear and accused Nos. 1 to 4 appeared and faced trial and after considering the evidence, the learned magistrate by Annexure-A3 order acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the prosecution has failed to prove their case. The case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.736/2004 and thereafter it was transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.8/2010. When he came to know about the pendency of the case, he surrendered before the court and it was refiled as C.C.No.1242/2014 and he was granted bail. A perusal of Annexure-A3 judgment will go to show that, the substratcum of the prosecution case has been shattered and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case against the 5th accused. Further in the first information statement, names of none of the accused persons were mentioned, though it was mentioned that there was some previous enmity between them, it was on account of that enmity that the present incident occurred. So no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case against the petitioner. So he is entitled to get the benefit of the order of acquittal of other accused persons and so he prayed for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri.Krishnakumar (Thiruvalla) and Smt.Seena Ramakrishnan, Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. Though notice has been served on respondents 2 to 4, they remained absent.