The High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash robbery proceedings. While noting the acquittal of co-accused, the Court held the petition should be decided by the Sessions Court via a discharge application rather than quashing, as specific allegations against the petitioner remained.
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 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2208 of 2016
SC 682/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA SC 171/1998 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
JOHN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, CHAKKRAVELIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA KARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN SRI.JERRY VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, RENAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
Crl.MC.No. 2208 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.171/1998 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN SC NO.682 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL OF SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
ORDER
The sole accused in S.C.No.682 of 2014 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
Crl.M.C. No. 2208 of 2016 -2-
Crl.M.C. No. 2208 of 2016 -3-
petitioner is called upon to answer a charge under Section 395 of the IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted as per Annexure A1 judgment after holding that the case against them could not be established by the prosecution, as the de facto complainant and the witnesses to the occurrence did not even vaguely support the case of prosecution. They deposed in unequivocal terms before the court that the accused Nos. 2 to 5, were not even present along with the 1st accused when the offence was committed. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nanhey V State of U.P. (1977 (2) SCC 74) , it was submitted that in view of the acquittal of the 4 others, there is no question of the appellant being convicted under Section 395 of the IPC . It is further urged that the substratum of prosecution case itself is destroyed and no purpose will be served in ordering the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a protracted trial.
opposed the contentions of the learned counsel. It is
Crl.M.C. No. 2208 of 2016 -4-
submitted that the petitioner is well within his rights to raise these matters before the Additional Sessions Court and seek for discharge and in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, this would not be justified in evaluating the materials in a thread bare manner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor Annexure A1 judgment would reveal that PW1 had specifically deposed about the role played by the petitioner herein and it cannot be said that the substratum of the case itself has been destroyed as against him. There is also a specific allegation that the de facto complainant was assaulted by the petitioner and it cannot be said at this stage that the prospects of conviction would be bleak.
Crl.M.C. No. 2208 of 2016 -5-
accused and when the de facto complainant and the witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms that they were not involved in the commission of offence, it is doubtful whether the ingredients of offence under Section 395 of the IPC will be attracted. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on a Constitutional bench decision of the Apex Court in K. Nagamalleshwara Rao V State of A . P . (1991 (2) SCC 532 ) to contend that the acquittal of named accused will be fatal and the petitioner cannot justifiably be convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC .
Crl.M.C. No. 2208 of 2016 -6-
grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, he can invoke the provisions under Section 228 of the Code as well.
With these observations this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE
kp/-30.5.16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings should be allowed given that other co-accused have been acquitted.
Whether the acquittal of co-accused destroys the substratum of the prosecution case against the petitioner charged with robbery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nanhey V State of U.P.Referred¶37
Nanhey V State of U.P. (1977 (2) SCC 74) · Who else cites this
K. Nagamalleshwara Rao V State of A.P.Relied on¶45
K. Nagamalleshwara Rao V State of A.P. (1991 (2) SCC 532) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
JOHN
STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
