The petitioner, an absconding accused, filed a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC to quash a pending complaint, arguing that acquittal of co-accused and alleged settlement warranted quashing. The court dismissed the petition.
Quashing of the criminal complaint was not permitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1762 of 2009() ------------------------(Crime No.794/2004 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED
HAMSA, S/O.SAIDU, PUZHANKARAYILLATH, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIKKU JACOB FOR R1
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.1762 OF 2009 ===========================
Dated this the 15th day of June,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the absconding accused No.2 in Crime No.794/2004 of Kodungallur Police Station and now pending as C.P.65/2006. Prosecution case was that all the accused due to political rivalry formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing death and inflicting injuries to the prosecution witnesses attacked them and inflicted injuries and thereby committed offences under sections 143,147,148,450,427,326,307,120B read with section 149 of IPC. Accused 1 and 3 to 5 were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after splitting the case as against the absconding petitioner. As per Annexure B judgment the other accused were found not guilty and were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash C.P.65/2006 which is pending against the petitioner for committal before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur.
Crl.M.C.1762/2009
2
was heard.
Crl.M.C.1762/2009 3
Petitioner is at liberty to agitate before court that in the light of the judgment under Annexure B he cannot be convicted.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C).NO. /06
--------------------JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint against an absconding accused can be quashed based on the acquittal of co-accused or alleged settlement with witnesses.
Whether the court has power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings when the petitioner remained an absconding accused during the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabReferred¶27
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19)
Manoj Sharma v. StateReferred¶27
Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 417)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
HAMSA
STATE OF KERALA
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
