The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that since co-accused were acquitted finding no evidence, and disputes were settled, the substratum of the prosecution case was lost, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.568/2014 are quashed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 1170 of 2016
S.C.NO. 568/2014 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - III, PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 983/2006 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 :
SAHADEVAN,
S/O.BHASKARAN, VELLANIRAVEL VEEDU, KUMARAMPEROOR THEKKEKKARA, VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
2. RAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAJESH BHAVANAM, MALAREAM MURI, MUKKUZHY, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 642.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 1170 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN S.C.NO.90/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO. 90/2009 NOW RENUMBERED AS S.C. NO. 568/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE-A3: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
Msd.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1170 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 13th June, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O R D E R
1.The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in S.C.No.568/2014
on the files of the Additional Sessions Court – III, Pathanamthitta involving offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and S.308 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant is the second respondent herein.
2.The petitioner along with six others were initially indicted and sent for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.90/2009. The petitioner was not available for trial and the case was proceeded with against the other accused except Accused No.2. As per Annexure 1 judgment dated 29.09.2014 in S.C.No.90/2009, the co accused were acquitted of all charges.
Crl.M.C.No.1170 of 2016 : 2 :
during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the 2nd respondent has also sworn to an affidavit which speaks in unmistakable terms his decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.
5.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. Annexure 1 judgment records the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 7 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in para.7 of the judgment that the de facto complainant in his evidence had deposed that the accused was not known to him. He also stated that the
Crl.M.C.No.1170 of 2016 : 3 :
disputes have been settled. It was based on these conclusive findings that the Court below had concluded that it was a case of “no evidence” to link the accused with the crime. These observations, would definitely affect the very substratum of the prosecution case. As held by Three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a coaccused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.
6.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported
in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.
Crl.M.C.No.1170 of 2016 : 4 :
7.This Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.568/2014 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court – III, Pathanamthitta, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings when the substratum of the prosecution case is lost due to acquittal of co-accused and settlement o
Whether the exceptional circumstances of non-liability of co-accused and settlement justify quashing the trial against the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceReferred¶44
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552)
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶46
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)
Narinder Singh and others v. State of PunjabRelied on¶46
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala
Rajeev Kumar
Raja Vijayaraghavan.V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
