Allowed

Renjith Lal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016Crl.MC/7627/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that since co-accused were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish a believable version, continuing the trial would be a futile exercise wasting judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings (C.C.No.832 of 2012) and all related proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvalla, are quashed.

Renjith Lal 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7627 of 2015

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 10-08-2012 IN CC 94/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA CRIME NO. 118/2005 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

RENJITH LAL, S/O.SOMARAJAN, THEKKEKARA VEEDU, VELLAYIL MURI, EZHUIMATTUR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU SRI.SHYAM.T.MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 7627 of 2015

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX A: COPY OF CHARGE SHEET F.I.R 118/2005 DATED 15/12/2005 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION

¶19

ANNEX B: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C NO.94/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.C. No.7627 of 2015

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

1.The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.832 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.118 of 2005 of Perumpetty Police Station.

¶32

2.After investigation in the above crime , final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate arraying 4 persons as the accused, the petitioner being the 1^st accused. The petitioner had absconded and hence the case was proceeded with against accused Nos.2 to 4. By AnnexureB judgment dated 10.8.2012, the aforesaid accused were extended the benefit of doubt and were acquitted of all charges. The case against the petitioner was split up and re-filled as aforesaid.

¶33

Crl.M.C.7627/2015

¶34

¶35

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

¶36

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decisions 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] would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose in view of the acquittal of the coaccused.

¶38

5.I have gone through Annexure-A final report and Annexure-B judgment of acquittal of the court below. It is borne out from paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment that the Court below had come to the conclusion that the prosecution was bound to fail for a variety of reasons as its version was not believable . It is on its basis that the accused No 2 to 4 were extended the benefit of doubt and

¶39

Crl.M.C.7627/2015 3

¶40

were acquitted . The evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime is closely intertwined with the evidence connecting accused No 2 to 4 and in view of the acquittal of the co-accused, the entire prosecution case becomes suspect and untrustworthy.

¶41

6.As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶42

7.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 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

¶43

Crl.M.C.7627/2015

¶44

¶45

prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶46

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.832 of 2012 on the file

¶47

of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla, are quashed.

¶48

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶49

vps

Renjith Lal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith Lal 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

Babu C.George Vs State of Kerala

Salini Vs State of Kerala

Shibi Vs State of Kerala

The Forest Range Officer Vs Hamza.K

S.v.Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Henry Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala