KHALID K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the accused No. 6 in Annexure A1 Crime No. 87/2006 of Valapattanam Police Station registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 435, 427 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. As the petitioner and some other accused did not make available for trial the case against them was split up and the trial has proceeded against A1 and A8 in CC No. 537/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court II, Kannur. The court below as per Annexure A2 judgment dated 19/04/2014 acquitted the said two accused. The case against the petitioner is now pending as CC No. 578/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Kannur. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent who is the de facto complainant has settled the matter with the petitioner as born out by Annexure A3 affidavit sworn to by him which is produced in this case. It is accordingly submitted that the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co -accused as per Annexure A2 judgment and that therefore the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. The submissions are also made to interdict the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of the aforementioned settlement between the parties.

(2.) HEARD , Sri. Krishnan Kartha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M. Ratheesh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.

(3.) ON a perusal of Annexure A2 judgment it can be seen that PW1 who is the de facto complainant deposed in evidence before the court below by stating that he cannot say any over act of any of the accused and that he had not seen A1 committing any Act. PW2, who is the wife of PW, though supported the prosecution during chief examination, later did not support during cross examination and stated that she has not seen the accused No. 8 in the incident. PW3 to PW5 who are the eye witnesses also stated that they cannot identify any of the miscreants. The prosecution witnesses also stated that the case is settled. In this view of the matter the court below found that there is absolutely no evidence to prove any of the prosecution allegation against A1 and A8 in the crime and accordingly acquitted said accused. From a perusal of the said judgment it can be seen that the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co -accused. Therefore in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in : 2006(1) KLT 552(FB) and in Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala reported in : 2011 (2) KHC 812 and in Abbas v. State of Kerala reported in : 2013 (2) KLT 976 : 2013 KHC 336, the prayer for quashment could be considered in the light of the acquittal of the co -accused. Moreover the disputes between the parties have been settled as born out by Annexure A3 affidavit sworn to by contesting respondent No. 2. There are no other Criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In this view of the matter the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC No. 578/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Kannur arising out of Annexure A1 crime No. 87/2006 of Valapattanam Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioner stand quashed in the interest of justice. Petitioner will produce certified copy of this order to the Station House Officer concerned and before the court below concerned.