The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on a co-accused's acquittal where the prosecution case relied on the non-examination of key witnesses in the earlier trial.
The petition to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed.
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 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 2355 of 2009() ----------------------------------CC.148/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM ....................
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED -----------------------------------
RAHUL, RESIDING AT PADANADATHIL VEEDU, CHERIYELA, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ
RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION,KOLLAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2355 of 2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.185/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Case of the petitioner is that accused 2, 4, 6 and 7 were tried by the Magistrate in C.C.No. 148/2005, after splitting up the case as against absconding accused 1, 3 and 5 and under Annexure-D judgment, accused 2, 4, 6 and 7 were acquitted and in the light of the order of acquittal, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings as against the petitioner. It is also contended that petitioner is not involved in the incident at all and due to a mistaken identity, petitioner was roped in and he is not the accused Rahul involved and hence, the case is to be quashed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner.
CRMC 2355/09 2
spite of coercive steps, CW2, the injured could not be examined and CWs 1 and 3, the other injured, turned hostile and CW1 even disowned his F.I. Statement and in the light of the evidence, Public Prosecutor did not examine the other witnesses and in such circumstances, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no chance of a conviction. Learned counsel also argued that petitioner was not involved in the incident at all and he was implicated due to a mistaken identity and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed.
expressed apprehension that though, on the allegations
CRMC 2355/09
3
provisions of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act are not attracted, in view of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 shown in the charge sheet, even if petitioner is to surrender, he may not be released on bail and hence, this petition may not be dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the Magistrate.
petitioner and whether it was the petitioner himself or some other Rahul cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is a matter for evidence. Petitioner is entitled to
CRMC 2355/09
4
raise all the questions before the Magistrate. If the case of the petitioner is that there is no material to connect him with the offence alleged, he is entitled to raise that contention before the Magistrate before framing the charge against him. Petitioner is also entitled to file an application for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and raise all the contentions before the Magistrate.
Petition is disposed.
10th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of acquittal of co-accused warrants quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.
Whether the question of mistaken identity can be decided in a special leave petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul
The State of Kerala
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
