Allowed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the court allowed the petition and quashed the trial proceedings against an accused who was a co-accused in a case that ended in acquittal of all due to lack of evidence, citing that continuing the trial would be futile.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to final report dated 26.10.2009 as S.C.No. 718 of 2018 are quashed.

Manoj Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2002 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.198/2006 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

MANOJ, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, KANDAYIL HOUSE, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (STATE):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-31.

¶12

SRI. AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No.2002 of 2019

¶15

..2..

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No. 718 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No. 198 of 2006 registered at the Perinthalmanna Police Station under Sections 120B, 307, 324, 326, 367 & 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act.

¶19

It appears from the records that the petitioner herein along with six others were initially indicted and sent for trial in S.C.No. 351 of 2010. The petitioner and the 7^th accused did not appear before the court below and face the trial. The trial was proceeded as against rest of the accused and by judgment dated 25.11.2014, they were acquitted of all charges. The said judgment has become final. Thereafter, the 7^th accused approached this Court and by order dated 28.06.2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3568 of 2016, proceedings against him were quashed.

¶20

It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused that this petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case as against the petitioner has been shattered.

¶21

..3..

¶22

Crl.MC.No.2002 of 2019

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decisions of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552], 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.

¶25

I have gone through the final report as well as the judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. In paragraph No.22 of the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that none of the prosecution witnesses had tendered any evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Furthermore, by order dated 28.06.2016, the proceedings against the 7^th accused have already been quashed by this Court.

¶26

As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa (supra), 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.

¶27

Crl.MC.No.2002 of 2019

¶28

..4..

¶29

I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner herein to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a

¶30

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 bleak as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶31

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No. 718 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri are quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶34

Bka/

¶35

Crl.MC.No.2002 of 2019

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX