Dismissed

V.Sajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021Crl.MC/415/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 2). It held that the acquittal of co-accused Nos. 3 and 4 does not automatically justify invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially where allegations against the petitioner remain untried before acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case was dismissed without prejudice to the parties' right to pursue normal remedies.

V.Sajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.415 OF 2013(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 135/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO.399/1994 OF Kannur Town , Kannur

¶8

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶9

V.SAJITH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS VAZAKKAYIL HOUSE, MONVANCHERY POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670 001.

¶14

3 G.HEERENDRAKAMMATH AGED 39 YEARS S/O GOPALA KAMMATH, THULASI VIHAR, THAVAKKARA ROAD, KANNUR-670 001.

¶15

R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.K. BABU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No.415 OF 2013(H)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Accused No.2 came up to quash the proceedings

¶21

against him on the ground that, the case as against him was split up and re-numbered and the trial was proceeded against the accused Nos.3 and 4 and ended in acquittal. The crime was registered alleging misappropriation of funds by using their respective status as the employees of the defacato complainant. The acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 may not be a sufficient ground for exhausting the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. especially when the allegation is regarding misappropriation as against the accused

¶22

No.2, who was not tried for the said offence. The present application hence cannot be sustained.

¶23

The Crl.M.C is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of parties to exhaust their normal remedies including the right to lodge a discharge petition.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶26

SPV

¶27

Crl.MC.No.415 OF 2013(H)

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO:319/1994 DATED 03.06.1994 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE. ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATE 30.09.1996 IN CRIME NO:399/1994 ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF 3^RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CC1407/2002 OF JFCM I KANNUR

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

PA TO JUDGE

V.Sajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sajith Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hameed Vs Kunhammed Haji

Gigi Thomas, Vs Johny K.Thomas

V.K.Susheela Vs Ramachandran

Indirabhai, Vs Rajeevan

Jayachandran O.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kancor Colours Ltd. Vs Gopal R Bansal