High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the 3rd accused after principal accused were acquitted, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case and no purpose would be served by continuing trial against the petitioner.
Final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner, including C.C.No.399/2019, set aside.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4886 OF 2019
[AGAINST THE C.C.NO.399/2019 IN CRIME NO.322/2010 PENDING BEFORE
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPALLY]
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
BIJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAPPAN NAIR, PUTHANPURAYIL VEETIL HOUSE,
PANCHAVAYAL KARA, ERUMELY NORTH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
K.A.HASSAN
SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, ERUMELY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.2ABDUL RAHIM,
S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, LALU COTTAGE, KULANJIPARAMBIL,
PATHIYUR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, THRIKUNNAPUZHA
VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY - 690 515.
3HOWLATH,
W/O. ABDUL MAJEED, KULANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAANOOR
MURIYIL, THRIKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY - 690 515.
FOR R2 AND R3 BY ADV SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
FOR R1 BY SRI. M.P. PRASHANTH -PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC No.4886 of 2019 2
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.322/2010 of Erumely Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 465, 419, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The aforesaid crime was registered on a complaint submitted by the defacto complainant against five accused persons.
CRL.MC No.4886 of 2019 3
have faced trial, and as per Annexure-4 judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, all of them were found not guilty of the offences and were acquitted accordingly. Upon coming to know about the said case, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Magistrate, and he was released on bail. The case against him now stands refiled as C.C.No.399/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police[2006(1) KLT 552].
CRL.MC No.4886 of 2019 4
the depositions of the material witnesses i.e. CW1 and CW2, who were examined as PW1 and PW2. PW1 denied the prosecution case and accordingly declared hostile. The evidence of PW2 was also in tune with the evidence of PW1. Thus, as there was no incriminating materials against the accused persons who faced the trial, even the examination of the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.PC was dispensed with. The learned Magistrate passed Annexure-4 judgment acquitting accused Nos.1,4 and 5 in such circumstances. Thus it can be seen that the prosecution could not adduce any evidence to establish the prosecution case. The main allegations in the final report were raised against the 1st accused, who was the beneficiary of the transactions in question and was found not guilty of the offence. As far as the role assigned to the petitioner by the prosecution is concerned, it is confined to the signing of the said documents as a witness. Since the prosecution could not produce any incriminating materials against the main accused persons, I do not find any meaningful purpose in allowing the continuation of the prosecution as against the petitioner. Thus, in the light of the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate as evidenced by Annexure-4, I have no hesitation in holding that, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost.
CRL.MC No.4886 of 2019 5 following the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa’s case (supra)
In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexue-1 final report submitted in Crime No.322/2010 of Erumely Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same as against the petitioner herein, including the proceedings in C.C.No.399/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally are hereby
set aside.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
CRL.MC No.4886 of 2019 6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4886/2019
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.322/10 REGISTERED BY THE ERUMELY POLICE
STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DATED
10.07.2012.
ANNEXURE 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW 1 IN
CC 2374/13 DATED 19.01.2017 BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II
KANJIRAPPALLY.
ANNEXURE 3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW 2 IN
CC 2374/13 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II KANJIRAPPALLY DATED
19.01.2017.
ANNEXURE 4THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.02.2017 IN CC2374/13 OF THE J.F.M.C.-II,
KANJIRAPPALLY.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings against a split accused when main accused were acquitted.
If the substratum of the prosecution case is lost due to acquittal of main accused, whether continuance of proceedings serves any fruitful purpose.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceFollowed¶24
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Biju
State of Kerala
Abdul Rahim
Howlath
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Parties & counsel