Allowed

Akhil.a.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2017Crl.MC/782/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petition against pending trial of petitioner accused. Court quashed proceedings based on acquittal of co-accused and conclusive findings that prosecution case crumbled due to belated complaint and lack of corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceeding C.C.No.537 of 2014 quashed on condition of deposit of Rs.2,000/- to Kerala Legal Services Authority within one month.

Akhil.a.K Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 782 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 809/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 24-05-2014 CRIME NO. 334/2012 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

AKHIL.A.K, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, AMBALAPADY, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031, FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI T R RANJITH

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 782 of 2017

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF the FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.334/2012 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 24.05.2017 IN C.C.NO.809/2012 OF THE JFMC-II, PERINTHALMANNA

¶18

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

¶19

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶20

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶21

=================

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.782 of 2017

¶23

=================

¶24

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2017

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused along with two other persons in Crime No.334 of 2012 of Wandoor Police Station for offences punishable under sections 341 and 506(i) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶27

It was alleged by the prosecution that on 28.08.2012 at about 10p.m., when the complainant along with the accused were proceeding to the mental hospital in a car, de facto complainant attempted to get down from the car. The accused wrongfully restrained him and intimidated the de facto complainant, thereby committed the various offences alleged. After investigation, final rpeort was laid and the accused other than the petitioner herein faced the prosecution. By Annexure-B judgment, other accused were acquitted. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and is now pending as C.C.No.537 of 2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the light of the judgment in C.C.No.809 of 2012 evidenced by

¶29

Crl.M.C.782/17

¶30

¶31

Annexure-B, entire case of the prosecution has crumbled down and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and that, Annexure-B judgment is not under challenge in any other proceeding.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reasoning given by the court below for acquitting the accused. Apart from holding that the complaint was highly belated, Court also noted that apart from the evidence of PW1, there was no corroboratory evidence. In the light of that finding, which is conclusive, there would not be a successful prosecution, even if the petitioner herein is ordered to face trial.

¶33

Having regard to that, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of the acquittal of the co-accused by Annexure-B judgment. Petitioner herein did not participate in the proceeding, which was initiated in the year 2012. Even though the remaining accused faced the trial, he did not participate in the trial thereby caused further delay to the proceeding which was split up and proceeded against the petitioner herein alone. Having considered this, I am inclined to impose a cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Kerala Legal Services

¶34

Crl.M.C.782/17

¶35

¶36

Authority, Ernakulam.

¶37

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceeding in C.C.No.537 of 2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna will stand quashed on condition that the petitioner herein deposits a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within one month from today and file proof for reporting compliance.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶40

Sbna/21/2/17

¶41

True Copy / P A to Judge

Akhil.a.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil.a.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.P Vs State of Kerala

Junaid.N Vs State of Kerala

Nihas Vs State of Kerala

Ajin Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs the State of Kerala