The petitioner herein is the original 2nd accused in Crime No.187/2004 of the Valayam Police Station, registered under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The prosecution allegation is that by an act of explosion, the two accused caused wrongful loss to the defacto complainant Usman Haji, by destroying and damaging his properties. The original 1st accused faced trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vatakara in S.C. No.392/2012. He obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when all the material witnesses turned hostile during prosecution.
2. When all the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case gave up all the remaining witnesses, and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vatakara closed the evidence. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and refiled as S.C No.57/2013 Crl.M.C No.6257 of 2014 2 when he remained consistently absent. He now seeks orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the prosecution on the ground that continuance of prosecution as against him will not serve any purpose, and that in the present circumstances the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case against him.
3. A perusal of Annexure 3 judgment in S.C No.392/2012 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vatakara shows that the other accused obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when none of the material witnesses supported the prosecution. Pending the proceeding, the defacto complainant died, but his wife gave evidence as a material witness. She did not identify the accused during trial, and she stated that the alleged act was not committed by the accused in this case. The incident witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated before the trial court that they had not seen any of the accused, and they do not know who caused the act of explosion. When all the material witnesses thus turned hostile, the other accused obtained a judgment of acquittal. I am quite definite that those witnesses cannot in any manner improve the case or give any positive Crl.M.C No.6257 of 2014 3 evidence against the petitioner herein, if the case against him goes to trial. I find that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner herein will be a sheer waste of time.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; be it at the crime stage, or at the trial stage, or even at the appellate stage, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute. I find a situation here, where there is a genuine settlement, and I am sure that continuance of prosecution further will do harm and hardship to both sides.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.57/2013 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vatakara will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner will stand discharged.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab