Allowed

Anju Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2015/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that although sentencing or reasoning in an acquittal of co-accused generally does not justify quashing, this is an exception when the dispute is settled, rendering the trial futile and the prospects of conviction bleak.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under C.C. No. 4879/2018 against the petitioners pending with the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery are quashed.

Anju Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2019

¶6

CC NO.4879/2018 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY

¶7

CRIME NO. 389/2003 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 TO 6:

¶9

1 ANJU VARGHESE, D/O.RAJAN VARGHESE, PANACKAMATTATHIL VEEDU, PAKKIL KARA, NATTAKAM VILLAGE.

¶10

2 K.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, T.C./WARD NO.II, HOUSE NO.139, NANCHANKOTTA, KAVADIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 VARGHESE JOHN, S/O.VARGHESE, WARD NO.II, H.NO.335, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶12

4 JOSE VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PANACKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, NIRANAM KARA AND VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.4879 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery.

¶23

The aforesaid case had arisen from Crime No.389 of 2003

¶24

of the Chingavanam Police Station registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that the accused were the Chairman and Director Board Members of the Ninan’s Technological Educational Society. They are alleged to have received money from various persons by offering job. When they failed to provide them placement or to repay the amount received, the law was set in motion. The investigation in the aforesaid crime was completed and final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case was originally taken cognizance of as C.C.No.384 of 2006.

¶26

The petitioners were not available for trial and hence, the trial was proceeded with against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. By

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2019

¶28

¶29

Annexure-B judgment dated 07.12.2011, the learned Magistrate, taking note of the fact that the disputes have been settled between the parties, acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶30

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 petitioners has been shattered. Reliance is placed 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] to substantiate his contention.

¶31

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through Annexure-B judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. The accused were acquitted as the dispute had been settled out of court.

¶32

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.

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2019

¶34

¶35

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 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.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A Charge sheet

¶37

and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C No.4879 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery are quashed.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

//TRUE COPY//P.A. TO JUDGE

¶41

IAP

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2019

¶43

¶44