The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a final report, holding that the plea of false implication was not substantiated as the dispute concerned evidence which the petitioner must face through trial.
The petition was dismissed with the trial court directed to expedite proceedings.
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. P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/8TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 333 of 2012 ()
CC.1414/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AYYAPPADAS, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARA PANICKER, PERUVELI HOUSE KUNDANNOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANTONY MATHEW
SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 50, S/O. SUKUMARAN, KALARIKKAL VELI HOUSE KURUPPANKULANGARA.P.O., CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/-
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
Crl.M.C.NO. 333 OF 2012
---------------------------------------Dated this the 27th day of February, 2012
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.1414/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Cherthala, seeks an order to quash Annexure A3 final report alleging offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(b) read with 187, Section 3(1) read with Section 181 and Section 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act with a plea that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that his vehicle had not at all hit the defacto complainant. In support of that plea the copy of complaint filed before the trial court is produced as Annexure A1. Basing upon Annexure A1, the
Crl.M.C.NO. 333 OF 2012
2
learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that yet another person with another vehicle number was implicated by the defacto complainant and now without a proper investigation, the petitioner was implicated. The vehicle number involved in the accident is also a different one. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that on investigation, it is revealed that the name of the assailant and the vehicle number mentioned in Annexure A1 is not correct and that the petitioner is the assailant and the vehicle number is the one mentioned in the final report. Such being the nature of dispute, I find that it is rather not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was falsely implicated. However, the dispute raised as to who was the assailant and which was the vehicle involved
Crl.M.C.NO. 333 OF 2012
3
is matter of evidence. Probably, the petitioner could confront the defacto complainant with Annexure A1 and crossexamine. But, it is not at all a reason to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner has necessarily to face the trial as there are sufficient averments in the final report, implicating the petitioner with the offences alleged. Therefore, I find that this petition is devoid of merits.
In the result, this petition is dismissed without prejudice the defence of the petitioner. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case without being trammeled by the observations made above in this order.
P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE
DSV/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of a final report based on the plea of false implication has merits.
Whether the dispute regarding the identity of the assailant and vehicle number warrants quashing of the proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AYYAPPADAS
STATE OF KERALA
UNNIKRISHNAN
PS GOPINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
