The petitioner herein is the original 7th accused in S.C No.677/2007 of the Court of Session, Alappuzha. The offences involved are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 120(B) r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Anil Kumar. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 10 faced trail in S.C No.667/2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha (Adhoc II), and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, in view of a settlement made by the parties out of court. In the said case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the defacto complainant Anil Kumar and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. The case against accused Nos.6, 7 and 11 was split up and refiled. Later, the accused Nos.6 and 11 faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in S.C No.242/2008, and obtained a Crl.M.C No.4854 of 2014 2 judgment of acquittal under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said case also nobody supported the prosecution. The prosecution examined four witnesses including the defacto complainant Anil Kumar and marked first information statement. PW1, the defacto complainant practically disowned his case during trial, and the material witnesses also stated that they had not in fact witnessed the alleged incident. On a perusal of Annexure A6 judgment in S.C No.677/2007 and the Annexure A7 judgment in S.C No.242/2008 I find that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner herein will not serve any purpose. When the trial court acquitted accused Nos.6 and 9 the case against the petitioner herein was split up and refiled. Now it stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P No.4/2009. I find that the substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost, and in such a situation the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioner herein, and the witnesses, including the first informant cannot in any manner support the prosecution, if the case against the petitioner goes to trial. Practically continuance of prosecution will be a sheer waste of time. Annexures A6 and A7 judgments will show that the material witnesses in fact Crl.M.C No.4854 of 2014 3 turned hostile during trial in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions, that in such cases where continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, the prosecution can well be quashed.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Alappuzha in L.P No.4/2009 will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab