Allowed

Ambadi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016Crl.MC/3854/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an absconding accused in a prosecution for IPC offences involving non-compoundable crimes, filed a criminal miscellaneouaste petition. The Court quashed the proceedings invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, considering the acquittal of co-accused which destroyed the prosecution case, coupled with a confirmed settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1153 of 2015 shall stand quashed.

Ambadi Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3854 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO.1153/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED :

¶8

AMBADI,

¶9

S/O.MANGALANANDAN, AGED 32 YEARS, AMBADI, SHANMUGHAPURAM, PACHALAM, PACHALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

2. LIBIN, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, KOTTEPARAM HOUSE, PACHALAM, PACHALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. SUJITH, S/O.BHAKTHADAS, AGED 30 YEARS, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, PACHALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3854 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED NIL IN CRIME NO.1108/2009 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE 2 COMPROMISE DATED 21.06.2016.

¶23

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.99/2010 DATED 03.01.2015.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 3854 of 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated 29^th July, 2016

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.1153 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Ernakulam. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.1108 of 2009 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶36

2.After investigation final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.99 of 2010. In the final report 6 persons were arrayed as the accused and the petitioner was arrayed as the 3^rd accused.

¶37

3.The petitioner and 2^nd accused did not appear before the court below and face trial. The case was proceeded with against accused 1, 4, 5 and 6 and by Annexure 3

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.3854 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

judgment dated 3.11.2015 the accused were found not guilty for the offences and they were acquitted of all charges. The case against the absconding accused was refiled and numbered as C.C.No.1153 of 2015.

¶41

4.It is submitted that after the acquittal of some of the accused, the matter stood amicably resolved and victims and the accused have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert in unmistakable terms their desire to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.

¶42

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other crimes are reported against the petitioner.

¶43

6.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. From Annexure 3 judgment, which records the acquittal of the co accused, it

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.3854 of 2016 -3-

¶45

is evident that the injured witness who was examined as PW 1 had filed an application seeking composition which was dismissed by the court below on the ground that the offences are not compoundable. PW 2 also followed suit and did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution had failed to bring in evidence any incriminating material to connect the accused with the crime. These findings entered into by the learned Magistrate would definitely affect the very substratum of the prosecution case.

¶46

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

¶47

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. Moreover the 2^nd respondent has

¶48

Crl.M.C. No.3854 of 2016 -4-

¶49

sworn to an affidavit wherein he has asserted that the matter has been settled.

¶50

8.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶51

In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings as against the petitioner who is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.1153 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Ernakulam shall stand quashed.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶53

kp/-30.7.16

Ambadi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambadi 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

Abdul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Subaida Vs State of Kerala

George Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ismayil Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran T I Vs the Range Forest Officer