Petitioner herein is the original 3rd accused in S.C.No.342/2010 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha. The other eight accused in the said case faced trial and obtained a judgment of acquittal, under Section 232 Cr.P.C., when all the material witnesses including the injured person did not support the prosecution. The case against the petitioner was split up and re-filed as S.C. No. 952/2013 when he remained consistently absent during trial. Now, he seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution on the ground that continuance of prosecution as against him in the above circumstances will not serve any purpose, and it will rather waste the precious time of the court. Annexure-A3 judgment in S.C. No. 342/2010 shows that the other accused in the case obtained a judgment of acquittal when all the material witnesses turned hostile. PW2 examined by the trial court is the person who sustained injuries in the alleged alleged incident of assault. He gave evidence that somebody Crl.M.C. No. 1832 Of 2014 2 assaulted him from behind, but he could not identify the assailant-PW1 is the first informant. He also did not support the prosecution in S.C.No.342/2010. PW3, examined as the only eye witness by the prosecution also turned hostile. He said that he had not seen any incident, and that he does not know who assaulted PW2. When all the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor dispensed with examination of the remaining witnesses. In the absence of any incriminating circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the others by judgment dated 28.11.2013. 2. The defacto complainant, Nirmal was subsequently impleaded in this proceeding as additional respondent No.3, and the first informant, Mahesh examined in the trial court was impleaded as additional respondent No.2 in this proceeding. In spite of due notice, they remained absent in this proceeding. I am well satisfied that the material witnesses turned hostile during trial in S.C.No. 342/2010 in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court. In such a situation the prosecution can not in any manner improve the case as against the petitioner, and it is definite that none of the material witnesses will in any manner support the Crl.M.C. No. 1832 Of 2014 3 prosecution, if the case goes to trial against the petitioner herein. In so many decisions, the Honoruable Supreme Court has held that the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. I am well satisfied that continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner herein in the above circumstances will be a sheer waste of time.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Prosecution as against the petitioner herein in S.C.No. 952/2013 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE