PRADEEP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.73/2013 of Tanur police station for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 read with section 349 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It was alleged by the prosecution that, the first accused had married one Jisha as per the customory rites. Thereafter, during their matrimonial relationship, the husband and the in-laws including the petitioner herein allegedly harassed her, demanding more dowry and money. This drew Jisha to commit suicide by running in front of a moving train. She died on 25.1.2013. Crime was registered against the accused. After investigation, final report was filed. All the accused except the petitioner herein faced the trial in SC.No.92/2014. By Annexure-3 judgment, all the accused, who had faced the trial were acquitted. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and is now prosecuted for offence in CP.No.62/2013.

(3.) The petitioner has approached this court contending that in the light of Annexure-3 judgment, the entire substratum of the case is broken and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. It was further contended that the parties have no grievance against the petitioner herein. A perusal of Annexure-3 shows that few witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. It included the first informant, the parents of the deceased and the sister. All the crucial witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In fact the mother went to the extent of saying that couple were living happily. In fact, PW4 sister deposed that the deceased died in an accident. Noting that all the close relatives of the deceased have turned hostile, the court below invoked section 232 Cr.P.C , 1973and acquitted all the accused. The petitioner has approached this court to quash the proceedings contending that no purpose will be served by prosecuting him. The learned Public prosecutor on instructions submitted that no appeal was preferred against Annexure-A3 judgment. The defacto complainant has also stated that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that 1 1/2 year child of the deceased is now being looked after by the first accused. Having considered these facts, I feel that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein.