Manoj vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3149 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

     THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                    Crl.MC.No.2298 OF 2020(F)

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 24/2010 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
                         COURT, THIRUVALLA

   CRIME NO.222/2002 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA


PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

             MANOJ, AGED 42 YEARS,
             S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUNNAKAL HOUSE, IRAKKAVU,
             PULLAD MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.HARIDAS
             SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
             SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN
             SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
             SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
             SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM PIN-682031

      2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             KOIPRAM POLICE STATION,
             PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689102

      3      SATHEESH BABU P.N
             PURIYIEKKAL, PULLAD.P.O, KOZHENCHERY. PIN-689102


             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.RAMESH CHAND

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.2298 OF 2020(F)         2




                              ORDER

Accused No.2 came up to quash the final report

and the proceedings thereof, alleging offence under

Sections 143,147,148,452,323,427,307 and 149. It

is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that all other accused persons were

acquitted after a prolonged trial. At that time,

the petitioner was not available in the station as

he was employed abroad. The matter was settled out

of court and an affidavit sworn by the defacto

complainant produced, wherein he had admitted that

he could not identify any of the person involved in

the crime. Hence, if it is proceeded further it

will not serve any purpose. So as to secure ends

of justice and to avoid unwarranted litigation, the

same is quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 4.8.2003 IN FIR NO.222/02 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.399/2004 DATED 29.03.2010

ANNEXURE 3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT/3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.02.2020

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE