Allowed

Sreejith.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016Crl.MC/3734/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's application to quash criminal proceedings. Relying on the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of evidence and the collapse of the case's substratum, the court held that further trial against the petitioner would be a futile exercise serving no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.37 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class I, Hosdurg stand quashed.

Sreejith.T Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3734 of 2016 ()

¶6

LPC 37/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG. CRIME NO.589/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED(ORIGINALLY A4):

¶8

SREEJITH.T, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKORAN, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 3734 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1	: A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 23.5.2011 IN HOSDURG POLICE STAT	FIR AND FI STATEMENT CRIME NO.589 OF 2011 OF ION.
ANNEXURE A2	: A TRUE COPY OF THE IN CRIME NO.589 OF C.C.NO.1092 OF 2011 FIRST CLASS MAGISTR	FINAL REPORT DATED 30.6.2011 2011 AS NUMBERED AS ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL ATE COURT-I, HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A3	: A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26.3.2015 OF MAGISTRATE COURT-I,	JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.1092/2011 THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS HOSDURG.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 3734 of 2016

¶26

- - - - Dated 26^th July, 2016

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in L.P.No.37 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class I, Hosdurg. The said case has arisen from Crime No.589 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police station registered inter alia for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶30

2.After investigation final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken cognizance as C.C.NO.1092 of 2011 as against the petitioner and three others. The petitioner did not appear before court below and the case against him was refiled as C.C.NO.740 of 2015. Now it is pending as L.P.No.37 of 2015. As against accused 1 to 3, trial was proceeded with and by Annexure A3 judgment dated 26.3.2015, accused

¶31

1 to 3 were acquitted off all charges under Section 248 (1)

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 3734 of 2016 -2-

¶33

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”).

¶34

3.Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case as against him has shattered in view of the acquittal of the co accused.

¶35

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

¶36

5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that

¶37

no other crimes are reported against the petitioner herein.

¶38

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the judgments of this Court in Moosa V Sub Inspector of Polic e 2006 (1) KLJ 349, Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala 2013 KHC 336, Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala 2013 KHC 177 and Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala 2011 (2) KHC 812 submits that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 3734 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

7.I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the materials on record and also the reasons that persuaded the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused 1 to 3. It is evident from Annexure A3 that despite repeated process, CWs 1 and 2 did not appear before trial court. The sole eye witness did not support the case. Consequently, the learned Magistrate had held that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The aforesaid judgment was rendered on 26.3.2015 and the same has become final.

¶42

8.In Moosa ( Supra) 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. The same

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 3734 of 2016 -4-

¶44

view was followed in the precedents cited supra.

¶45

9.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 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.

¶46

In the result this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.37 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class I, Hosdurg shall stand quashed.

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶48

kp/-27.7.16

Sreejith.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith.T 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Rojo Joseph Vs Lijo Joseph

P K Hashim Haji Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

Thonikkadan Abdul Nasar Vs the State of Kerala

Robinson Gomez @ Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Arun Ghosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police