Allowed

Benny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3280/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, an accused in a 1996 case involving offenses under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, and 34. The court held that the trial was futile as all co-accused were acquitted and prosecution witnesses failed to appear, making a conviction extremely remote.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos.1 and 2, in C.C. No.282 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Aluva.

Benny Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3280 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.282/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA. CC. NO.620/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA. CRIME NO. 57/1996 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

BENNY, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH (ROY), SRI.JOHNSON THOMAS.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 3280 of 2016

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶18

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.57/96 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, ALUVA. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DTD 21/03/2006 OF THE JFCM COURT- 1 ALUVA IN CC. NO. 282/2002.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶24

=================== Crl. M.C. No.3280 of 2016

¶25

=======================

¶26

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

1.The petitioner herein is the accused in LP No.56 of 2010 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Aluva. The said case has arisen from Crime No.57 of 1996 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered inter-alia for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

2.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken cognizance of as C.C. No.282 of 2002.

¶30

3.The petitioner did not appear before the Court below and hence case against him was split up and refiled. As per Annexure-III judgment dated 21.03.2006, the accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of all charges.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel submits that the substratum of the

¶33

Crl. M.C. No.3280 of 2016 2

¶34

case has been shattered and the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process.

¶35

It appears from Annexure III judgment that none of the prosecution witnesses has turned up before Court in spite of issuance of coercive steps. Annexure III would emphatically reveal that all the other accused were acquitted in respect of the crime which is alleged to have been committed in the year 1996.

¶36

In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that though the judgment rendered in the case of a co-accused and the reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself, a case where the very substratum of the case is lost which may be an exception to this rule.

¶37

8.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this

¶38

Crl. M.C. No.3280 of 2016 3

¶39

stage. It can only be a futile exercise and the only purpose that will be served is to gnaw into precious time during which more productive work can be done by the court below. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote owing to the acquittal of the co accused In the result this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in in C.C. No.282 of 2002 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I shall are quashed.

¶40

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶41

SKV

Benny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtas Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Vinoy A.C Vs State of Kerala