Allowed

Sumesh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3351/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Miscellany petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the sole accused who had been indicted with three others, all of whom were subsequently acquitted. The High Court held that no purpose would be served by forcing the petitioner to face trial given the acquittals and absence of witnesses, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.741/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur, were quashed.

Sumesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3351 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 741/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 579/2008 OF VALAPPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SUMESH, S/O MOHANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KORATTY HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION,

¶12

KANNUR - 670 010.

¶13

2.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3351 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE II : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-03-2012 IN C.C. NO 285/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KANNUR. ANNEXURE III : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-05-20-14 IN CC 127/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶23

mbr/

¶24

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.3351 of 2016

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 14^th June, 2016

¶27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

1.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.741/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Kannur, involving offence punishable under Sections.341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. He along with three others were initially indicted and sent for trial before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.285 of 2009.

¶30

2.The petitioner, who was the 1^st accused, and the 2^nd accused did not appear before the Court below and faced the trial. Trial was proceeded with against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and as per Annexure II judgment dated 19.3.2012, they were acquitted of all charges under S.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

3.Later, the 2^nd accused was tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.127/12. As per Annexure III

¶32

Crl.M.C.3351 of 2016 2

¶33

judgment dated 03.05.2014, he was also acquitted under S.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶34

4.After the acquittal of all the other accused, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case has been shattered.

¶35

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

¶36

6.It appears from Annexure III judgment that none of the prosecution witnesses has turned up before Court in spite of issuance of coercive steps. Only the investigating officer was examined as PW1. Annexures II and III would emphatically reveal that all the other accused were acquitted in respect of the crime which is alleged to have taken place in the year 2008.

¶37

In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.C.3351 of 2016 3

¶40

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.

¶41

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 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.

¶42

9.In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.741/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Kannur, shall stand quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.

Judge

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Sumesh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakhimol Vs State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Jaisal Vs the State of Kerala