VIGNESH @ YAJNESH v. State of Kerala and Sulaiman Afreedi and The Station House Officer, Adhur Police Station

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT ## THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 ## CRL.MC NO. 1702 OF 2022 [TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN L.P.C.NO.22/2020 ON THE FILE FO THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO.67/2015 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION] ## PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VIGNESH @ YAJNESH,AGED 33 YEARS,S/O BALAKRISHNA RAO, MEVINAMANE,AMBIKA NAGAR, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-,PIN - 671541 BY ADVS. ROSIN JOSEPH AMRITA ARUN ## RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SULAIMAN AFREEDI,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O AHAMMED @ AMU B.S., MAINDAPPARA HOUSE, MULLERIA ADHUR VILLAGE, MULLERIA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-, PIN - 671543 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 67 OF 2015). KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671543 ## OTHER PRESENT: FOR R1 AND R3 BY ADV. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHANAN – PP FOR R2 BY ADV.JACKSON JOHNY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 2 ## ORDER The Petitioners herein is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.67/2015 of Adhur Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2015 at 8.30 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention to commit offence, the accused persons have wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him with weapons. Annexure-A1 is the F.I.R and Annexure A2 is the final report submitted in respect of the same. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have faced trial before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod in S.C.No.375/2017 and Annexure-A3 is the judgment CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 3 passed thereon by which both of them were acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up and it is now pending as LPC No.22/2020 before the Additional Sessions Court- II, Kasaragod. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure-A2 final report arising out of Crime No.67/2015 of Adhur Police Station, as against the petitioner. 3. Heard Smt.Rosin Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Jackson Johny the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly for the reason that the dispute between the parties has been settled and to CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 4 substantiate the same Annexure-A5 affidavit sworn by the 2[nd] respondent is produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit and it is also specifically stated that the 2[nd] respondent has no subsisting grievances against the petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent also clearly expressed his no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioner herein. It is true that the offence under Section 308 IPC is also incorporated in Annexure-A1 F.I.R. However, as per Annexure-A3 judgment, all the other accused were acquitted by the Court. On perusal of Annexure-A3 judgment passed by the Sessions CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 5 Court, it can be seen that none of the witnesses including the defacto complainant had supported the prosecution case. The defacto complainant while being examined as PW1 in the said case, had stated that, he could not identify any of the assailants and he had furnished the names on the F.I.S on the basis of mere suspicion. The other occurrence witnesses namely PWs. 2 to 4 have stated that, they did not witness the incident. When considering the evidence that has been adduced during trial against the other accused and the findings arrived at by the Sessions Court thereof, I am of the view that, no fruitful purpose would be served even if the trial is conducted against the petitioner herein. Further, the substratum of the case is seen lost consequent to the finding arrived at CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 6 by the Sessions Court. In such circumstances, taking into account the findings in the aforesaid judgment and also the settlement between the parties, it is only proper that the proceedings be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4)KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. AAnnexure-A2 final report in Crime No.67/2015 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod and all further proceedings in LPC 22/2022 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, as CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 7 against the petitioner herein are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE pkk CRL.M.C No.1702 /2022 8 ## APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1702/2022 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 03.02.2015 IN CRIME NO. 67/2015 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 67/2015 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION Annexure A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2019 IN S.C NO. 375/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- II, KASARAGOD Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 03.02.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.02.2022 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE AN ADVOCATE