Rakhil @ Mini @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Kerala And Anr

The petitioner herein is ORDER arrayed as the 2nd accused in Crime No.304/2013 for offences punishable u/s.354, 294(b) r/w.349 IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Schedule Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner herein along with the three other accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted CW1 with the intention of outraging her modesty. It was further alleged that they committed several acts offending the provisions under the SC ST (POA) Act. Pursuant to the F.I statement laid by the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 faced the trial before the Sessions Court in S.C. No.334/2015. By Annexure-3 judgment, the above accused were acquitted. Since the petitioner herein was absent, the case against him was split up and is now pending as S.C. No.47/2016 of that Court Kottarakkara.

Crl.M.C. is laid by the petitioner contending that he was not in station during the relevant time and that he could not participate in the legal proceedings. It was contended that the dispute with the 2nd respondentCrl.M.C.No.943/2018defacto complainant was2 settled by him and no further grievance survives. It was also contended that in the light of Annexure-3 judgment, the substratum of the case is broken and hence no effective prosecution will lie against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 10 of Annexure -3, wherein the Court has subsequently held that there was no iota of evidence for establishing the case set up by the prosecution.

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that Annexure-3 judgment has not been challenged in any other proceedings. Evidently, it has become final and conclusive. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent admitted that the matter was settled evidenced by Annexure -4 affidavit affirmed by the 2nd respondent. Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined to hold that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. Accordingly, Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

However, it is to be noted that though agreement is of the year 2018 and the co-accused faced the trial in the year 2015, the petitioner herein remained absent throughout the proceedings, which resulted in considerable delay in judicial proceedings. Hence, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C only subject to the paymentCrl.M.C.No.of943/2018costquantified at Rs.1500/3- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) and remit the above amount in the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Committee, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam within 15 days from today and produce receipt. Thereupon S.C.No.47/2016 of the Special Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Kottarakkara will stand quashed.