Petitioner, accused No. 20, sought to quash criminal proceedings under sections 395 and 412 IPC citing a previous acquittal of co-accused. The court held that partial acquittal or conviction of some does not destroy the prosecution case, and the petitioner must face trial.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2011()
-----------------------AGAINST CP.84/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHALAKUDY IN CRIME NO.223/04 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION ....................
PETITIONER / 20TH ACCUSED
-------------------------------------------
HABEEB, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, NALAKATHU HOUSE, MAHADEVA APARTMENTS, CIVIL LINE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU
RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
---------------------------------------------
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dmb
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March 2011
O R D E R
Petitioner is accused No.20 in Crime No.223 of 2004 of Koratty Police Station and C.P.No.84 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy for offences punishable under Sec.395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Petitioner states that he is not involved in the alleged incident and on the strength of Annexure-A3 judgment in S.C.No.391 of 2007 pleads to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was not even aware of proceeding against him and that in the light of Annexure-A3 judgment, it is unnecessary to conduct trial of petitioner. It is also contended that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011
-: 2 :-
Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011
substratum of the prosecution case. So that taking note of that, this Court is justified in quashing the proceeding. That some of the accused are acquitted of all charges and some are acquitted of the charge under Sec.395 of the IPC does not justify quashing proceeding against petitioner who face charge under Sec.412 of the IPC also, for which some of the accused are already convicted. Petitioner has to face trial. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Jvt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for quashing criminal proceedings is maintainable when the petitioner is a minority accused not yet tried in the same case.
Whether acquittal of some co-accused or partial conviction on specific charges justifies the quashing of the entire case against a remaining accused.
Whether the court should dismiss the plea to quash proceedings and direct the petitioner to face trial for specific charges.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Habieb
Sub Inspector of Police, Koratty
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
