Allowed

Santhosh Kumar @Monukutti v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3442/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against two accused who were not present in the trial. The court held that proceedings were futile as co-accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence, and continued trials would waste judicial time.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.478 of 2014 at the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara were quashed.

Santhosh Kumar @Monukutti 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

SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3442 of 2016

¶6

S.C.NO.478/2014 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ MONUKUTTI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KURIYANIKKAL KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, MANCHAVILAKAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. UDAYAN,

¶10

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VELAPPAN, MULAKKONATH PUTHEN VEEDU, CHARUVILAKAM, MANCHAVILAKAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶12

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031, (CRIME NO.17/2003 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶15

2. SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.NEELAKANTA KURUKKAL, KULATHINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR THRIPPALLOOR TEMPLE, PERUNGADAVILAKAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 3442 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.17/2003 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS S.C NO.478/2014.

¶23

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 21.12.2013 IN S.C NO.777/2005 AND S.C NO.1597/2009 PASSED BY THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, NEYYATINKARA.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.3442 of 2016

¶31

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

~~~~~~~~

¶34

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.478 of 2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.17 of 2013 of the Parassala Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.

¶35

2.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioners herein and 6 others. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 6 in the final report. The case was committed to the court of Session and the case against the accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 was numbered as S.C.No.775 of 2005 and as against the 1^st accused who was separately committed

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.3442 of 2016 -2-

¶37

the same was numbered as S.C.No.1597 of 2009. The petitioners did not appear before the learned Sessions Court and case against them was split up. As against the other accused, the case was proceeded with and as per Annexure-II judgment dated 21.12.2013 they were found not guilty and were acquitted under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

4.It is submitted that in view of the acquittal of the other accused by Annexure-II judgment, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners herein is a futile exercise. It is pointed out that the injured witness did not appear before the court below and give evidence.

¶40

5.I have gone through Annexure-II judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It is revealed from the said judgment that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.3442 of 2016 -3-

¶42

offence alleged and it was holding so, the benefit of doubt was extended to the accused.

¶43

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

¶44

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 wherein the very substratum of the case is lost may be an exception to this rule.

¶45

7.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioners to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the

¶46

Crl.M.C. No.3442 of 2016 -4-

¶47

prosecution during the previous trial. This court will be justified in terminating the proceedings invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code .

¶48

In the result this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners , who are the accused in S.C.No.478 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, are quashed.

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶50

Ps/8/8/16

Santhosh Kumar @Monukutti v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar @Monukutti 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

G.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Kamarudeen Vs State of Kerala

Arun B Vs Stateof Kerala

Jeffy @ Sujith Vs Joshy

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala