The prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the acquittal of co-accused led to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, highlighting issues of judicial efficiency and abuse of process.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in SC.251/2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner and some other accused were charge sheeted, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323, 294(b), 427, 506(i) r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedeuled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The prosecution case in short is as follows:

On 30.5.2010 at about 21.30 hours, out of previous enmity in not surrendering the land for widening the road, the accused persons who belong to upper caste, in prosecution of their common object of committing offence formed themselves into an unlawful assembly knowing that they are all members of the said assembly, rioted, armed with deadly weapons like wooden stick and iron rod, and trespassed into the house of PW.1 bearing No.7/134 of Moodadi Grama panchayath where PW.1 and famiiy are residing and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 and PW.2 to 4 by pushing and pulling them and abused them and also called their caste name in public view and aiso threatened to destruct their house and destructed the window glass panes by pelting stones and destructed the pipe of bore- well and destructed stones kept in the courtyard for constructing the compound wall and caused a loss of Rs.16,000/- and thereby accused committed the offence aforementioned.

3. The petitioner was not able to appear before the trial court and his case was splitted and other accused faced trial. The other accused were acquitted by the trial Court as per Judgment dated 13.02.2017 in Sessions Case No. 27/2011 and the same was confirmed by this Court as per Judgment dated 28.10.2024 in Crl. A. 625/2017. It is submitted that in the light of the fact that the co-accused were already acquitted and the same was confirmed by this Court, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court.

4. I think there is some force in the above argument. Annexure A2 is the Judgment by which the co- accused were acquitted. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

20. The next argument is with regard to the prosecution evidence of the weapons alleged to have been held by the accused persons. The learned counsel would contend that in FIS, PW.1 has categorically stated that all the accused persons were holding iron stick and wooden stick and assaulted them. But PW.12, the Investigating OfÏcer filed report Ext. P12 for deleting Sec. 324 and adding Sec. 323 since investigation made by him revealed that only injuries attracting Sec. 323 has been borne out. The learned counsel also contend that with regard to the use of weapon, the prosecution witnesses gave different versions and even though PW.12 the Investigating OfÏcer would state that the offence under Sec. 324 is no proved to have been committed and hence he filed report deleting Sec. 324 and adding Sec. 323 the witnesses are not prepared to admit that fact and PW.1 in page No. 15 categorically admitted that he has stated to the Dy.S.P., Thamarassery that himself and the children were assaulted with weapons and caused injuries. PW.1 when was asked about the FIS wherein he has stated about the assault with iron stick and wooden stick, his answer was that they were holding iron stick and wooden stick. But he was assaulted with hand and further he deposed that he was not assaulted with iron stick or wooden stick. Further he deposed that he had not seen the accused assaulting his daughters and PW.4 with iron stick and wooden stick. So on appreciating the evidence of PW.1 the inconsistent version given by him with regard to the assault with weapon is clearly borne out.

21. PW.2 during cross-examination in page 7 categorically stated that she has stated to the Thamarassery Dy.S.P that when they tried to resist they were beaten with sticks, but she further deposed that she was not assaulted with stick. But her father has been assaulted with stick