Allowed

Benny Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2011Crl.MC/1244/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Criminal Miscellaneous case allowing the quashing of proceedings against a fifth accused in a cheating and forgery matter. The court held that the acquittal of co-accused in a related case, where the complainant verified documents and stated no complaint about cheating, destroyed the prosecution's substratum.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.198 of 2009 are quashed.

Benny Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1244 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------[CC.NO.198/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, KOTTAYAM]

¶5

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

¶6

-----------------------------------------

¶7

BENNY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 41 YEARS,THENGUTHOTTATHIL(MUNDACKAL) HOUSE, THADIYAMPODU, MANJAPPARA, IDUKKI.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU).

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

--------------------------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

prv.

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶16

-------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1244 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2011.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.94 of 2006 of Ayarkunnam Police Station and C.C.No.198 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 120B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that petitioner and others entered into a conspiracy to make unlawful gain for themselves and loss to the defacto complainant, forged the R.C. Book and other documents as if first accused is the registered owner of the vehicle involved, made the defacto complainant believe so and obtained loan from him on the security of those documents. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of Annexure-A3, judgment.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the finding in Annexure-A3, judgment prosecution against the petitioner cannot stand.

¶20

Accused 1 to 4 faced trial in C.C.No.273 of 2007 and by AnnexureA3, judgment dated 22.07.2009 they were acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The case against petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.198 of 2009. The question is whether prosecution against petitioner/fifth accused is to be proceeded with or not. If the

¶21

¶22

Crl.MC No.1244/2011

¶23

substratum of the prosecution case is destroyed by Annexure-A3, judgment, then, prosecution against petitioner need not be allowed to continue. It is seen from Annexure-A3, judgment that PW1, the defacto complainant did not support the prosecution case. It is also seen from that judgment that PW1 deposed that he had verified the records produced as security for the loan and was satisfied that the same were the original. He stated that he has no complaint about the alleged cheating. Learned Magistrate, referring to the evidence of PW1 has observed that “evidence of PW1 shows that prosecution case against the accused persons are false”. PW2 examined in C.C.No.273 of 2007 is an attestor to the seizure mahazar. Other witnesses, obviously in the light of the evidence given by the defacto complainant were given up. In the circumstances I am inclined to think that the substratum of the prosecution case is destroyed by Annexure-A3, judgment and hence the prosecution against petitioner need not be allowed to continue.

¶24

Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The

¶25

proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.198 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam are quashed.

¶26

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶27

cks

Benny Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sibi C.P Vs State of Kerala

Deepthimol B.S. and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Nidusha and 4 Others Vs Anwar and Another

Asha and Another Vs Srekumari and Another