Crl.MC/9267/2019 of PRAVEEN @ SOOLI, Vs THE STATE OF KERALA, on 31 December 2019

O R D E R

The petitioner was arrayed as the 7[th] accused in crime no.523/2010 of the Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341,323, 324, 308 read with 149 of IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation was that,on 25.10.2010, the petitioner along with theco-accused attacked the defacto complainant andothers and inflicted injuries on them. On thebasis of a complaint laid crime was registeredand after investigation of crime, final reportwas filed as C.P.No.9/2011 of the JudicialFirstClassMagistrateCourt–II,Thiruvananthapuram, against 7 persons includingthe petitioner.

3. Since the presence of accused 3, 5 and7 could not be procured the case against themwas split up and refiled as C.P.No.75/2012.

C.P.No.9/2011 was committed to the SessionCourt and numbered as S.C.No.837/2012 of thePrincipalAssistantSessionsCourt,Thiruvananthapuram. Before the Trial Court PWs1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 weremarked and MO1 and MO2 were identified. TheCourt below on an evaluation of the availablematerials acquitted the accused 1, 2, 4 and 6who had faced the trial.

4. The case against the remainingaccused, which was pending as C.P.No.75/2012,was committed to the Sessions Court and ispending as S.C.No.1542/2012, of the PrincipalAssistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

5. The petitioner contended that, in the

light of the acquittal of the co-accused, whohad faced the trial in S.C.No.837/2012, thesubstratum of the case stands shattered and nopurpose will be served by prosecuting thepetitioner herein. Hence the criminal M.C. was filed to quash the proceedings as against him.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Annexure B, which isthe judgment in S.C.No.837/2012. It seen thatthe before that Court below two ocular witnesswere examined as Pws 1 and 4. They did notsupport the prosecution case in any manner. Aninjured was examined as PW8. He also did notsupport the prosecution case. In the abovecircumstances, there was no evidence toestablish the prosecution allegation.

7. In the light of the evidence tenderedby the ocular and injured witnesses before theCourt below, there is no scope for a furthertrial of the petitioner herein. Consequently,the prosecution of the petitioner inS.C.No.1542 of 2012 can only be an emptyformality. Hence I feel that the proceedingsagainst the petitioner can be quashed.

8. However, it is seen that thepetitioner herein did not participate in theearlier proceedings, now be pending asL.P.No.100/2019. Having considered the fact,the petitioner herein did not participate inthe early proceedings, resulting in the spitingup of the proceedings, I am satisfied that hehas contributed for the delay in the judicialproceedings. Hence I feel that the CriminalM.C. can be allowed subject to the payment ofcost for causing delay in the judicialproceedings.

Conclusion

Accordingly the Criminal M.C. is allowed.All further proceedings as against thepetitioner herein in S.C.No.1542/2012 (nowpending as L.P.NO.100 of 2019) arising fromCrime No.523/2010 of Thumba Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram, will stand quashed oncondition that, the petitioner herein depositsa sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand VPK

only) with the Kerala State Legal ServiceSociety, Ernakulam, within 15 days from thedate of receipt of the copy of this order andproduction of the receipt before the TrialCourt.

The Criminal M.C. is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMASJUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE ATHE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO.837/2012 ARAISED FROM CRIME NO.523/2010 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE B

THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2019 IN S.C.NO.837/2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

VPK

PA TO JUDGE