Allowed

Shyamlal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021Crl.MC/2914/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole judge allowed criminal miscellaneous petition to quash pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner (5th accused) in C.C.No.8/2014 after observing that substratum of case was lost due to acquittal of co-accused and hostile witness depositions.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.8/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura are quashed.

Shyamlal Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2914 OF 2015

¶6

[CRIME NO.5/2005 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA] C.C.NO.8/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

TRIPUNITHURA]

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SHYAMLAL

AGED 30 YEARS

S/O.PARTHASARATHY, AMBADY, PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

2 VINEETHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,W/O.MURUKA DAS, LIVING AS TENANT IN KANNANKERIL HOUSE, KARULLIL LANE, PALLIPPARAMBUKAAVU BHAGOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA KARA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301.

¶16

3 MURUKA DAS S/O.GOPALAN ACHARI

¶17

LIVING AS TENANT IN KANNANKERIL HOUSE, KARULLIL LANE, PALLIPARAMBUKAAVU BHAGOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA KARA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R1 BY SRI. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PP

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 2

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 3

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.8/2014

¶25

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura which is registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,294(b),323,354,451,506(i) r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶26

The aforesaid case originated from Crime No.5/2005 of Hill Palace Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner and four others for the offences mentioned above. The petitioner is the 5^th accused in the said crime and after completing the investigation, the police filed Annexure A1 final report. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam has taken cognizance on the final report as C.C.No.1394/2005. Accused Nos.1 to 3 stood trial in the said C.C. and case against 4^th and 5^th accused were split up. After the trial, accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted as per Annexure-

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 4

¶28

A2 judgment. As against 4^th accused, the case was re-numbered as C.C.No.1181/2010. The 4^th accused filed Crl.M.C.No.3200/2013 before this Court for quashing the aforesaid proceedings. This Court as per Annexure-A3 order, quashed the proceedings against the 4^th accused by taking note of the

¶29

acquittal passed as per Annexure A2 judgment.

¶30

The case against the petitioner was

¶31

re-numbered as C.C.No.8/2014 and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura which is sought to be quashed in this Crl.M.C.

¶32

Heard Sri.M.R.Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent. Even though notice was served on the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, there is no appearance for them.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the finding entered into by the trial court in Annexure-A2 judgment wherein

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 5

¶35

accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted, the substratum of the case is lost. The aforesaid finding is fortified by the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3200/2013 wherein the proceedings against the 4^th accused was quashed. In the light of the above and by relying upon the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552], this case is only to be quashed.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

¶37

said contention.

¶38

On going through Annexure-A2 judgment, it

¶39

can be seen that, the injured witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and they deposed that they do not know the assailants. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the deposition of respondents 1 and 2. On perusal of the same, it can be seen that, PW1 stated that she has not been inflicted with any injuries in the incident. None of the accused were identified by PW2 and he has not mentioned about the incident. Considering the

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 6

¶41

said aspect, it can be safely concluded that even though the finding in Annexure-A2 was with respect to acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 therein, the said finding comes to the rescue of the petitioner herein. In Moosa’s case (supra), this Court held that if the substratum of the case is lost, the proceedings against the other accused persons can

¶42

be quashed. In this case, by virtue of the specific finding entered into by the trial court in Annexure-A2 judgment and also in the light of the order passed by Annexure-A3 quashing the charges against the 4^th accused, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner herein who is the 5^th accused can also be quashed.

¶43

Accordingly, I allow this Crl.M.C. and the

¶44

proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.8/2014 on the file of the Judicial First

¶45

Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura are hereby

¶46

quashed. Sd/-

¶47

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶48

pkk

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2015 7

¶50

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2914/2015

¶51

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶52

ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.8/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA

¶53

ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2010 IN CC NO.1394/2005 OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶54

ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.3200/2013 DATED 12.11.2013.

Shyamlal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal 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

Maniboy Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Vinod Mathew Jacob Vs K.I.John

Yahiya a. K. Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Nambiar, Vs State of Kerala

P. Anversadath Vs State of Kerala