RAOOF ABOOBACKER Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in a prosecution, inter alia, for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.323 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against them is that they along with the co- accused were members of an unlawful assembly of persons who wrongfully restrained a bus with passengers and beat C.Ws.1 to 3 with hands. The petitioners were not available for trial. Allthe co-accused have beenfound not guilty and acquitted. In the trial against the co-accused, only one of the three injured persons was examined as P.W.1. That witness did not support the prosecution case. Thereupon, all the co- accused, who stood trial, werefound not guilty and acquitted.

(2.) The petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) What are the reasons?Except that the co-accused have beenacquitted inthetrial heldagainst them, nootherreasons are urged. The hostility of P.W.1 to the prosecution cannot be of any help to the petitioners. In the trial against the co-accused, the judgment in which is produced as Annexure-I, all other injured witnesses have not been examined. The reasons are not explained. In any view of the matter, the mere fact that in the trial against the co-accused all relevant witnesses were not examined and that one of the relevant witness examined turned hostile cannot, at any rate, be a sufficient justification to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the absconding co-accused. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court inMoosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) concludes the question. I amsatisfied that the applicationunderSec.482ofthe Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed.