This court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 214 of 2022 arising from Crime No. 595/2015. The quashing was based on the inability to procure the presence of the key injured witness, rendering it idle to continue the trial.
Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 214 of 2022 are quashed and the petitioner shall stand exonerated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1726 OF 2020
(CRIME No. 595/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 98/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HAREESH KUMAR K.K AGED 44 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, IDRAJAM HOUSE, ELAMBACHI, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
SR.PP - SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M. C. NO. 1726 OF 2020
2
O R D E R
Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 595 of 2015 of
Hosdurg police station registered on 10.06.2015 alleging offence punishable under Sections 365, 342, 384, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Crl. M. C. NO. 1726 OF 2020
3
voluntary hurt, he was also intimidated that he would be killed and was manhandled by accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and thus the above stated crime was committed. CW1 is the de facto complainant and CWS 2 to 4 are the occurrence witnesses. From Annexure-A3 judgment, it is clear that in spite of repeated attempts to procure the presence of CW1 he could not be traced for examination. Thus after examining CWs 2 to 4 as PWs 1 to 3, the prosecution evidence was closed premature and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted under Section 248(i) of the Cr.P.C.; then the case against accused Nos. 1 and 4 was refiled as C.C. 961 of 2018. Thereafter the case was removed to the register of long pending cases and now the case against the petitioner has been refiled as C.C. No. 214 of 2022.
Crl. M. C. NO. 1726 OF 2020
4
him, by Annexure-AIII, the substratum of the case has been lost.
Prosecutor submits that even now the whereabouts of CW1, the
de facto complainant is not known. That means even if the petitioner is put on trial, so long as the stand of CWs 2 to 4, the independent witnesses is clear, the prosecution may not be able to bring out a case against the petitioner as well. It is said that CW1 is somewhere abroad, that warrants are pending against him in two other cases from different police stations.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K. HARIPAL
JUDGE
RMV/25/03/2022
5
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1726/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 595 OF 2015 OF HOSUDRUG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 595 OF 2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A111 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.7.2018 IN CC NO 2051 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, HOSDURG
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings against the accused should be quashed due to unavailability of key prosecution witness.
Whether continuation of trial is viable when the de facto complainant cannot be traced.
HAREESH KUMAR K.K
STATE OF KERALA
K. HARIPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
