Allowed

Manikandan @ Murukeshan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022Crl.MC/5125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings alleging that collateral prosecution must fail when main accused pledgers were acquitted due to lack of evidence on the primary transaction core.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the third accused in Crime No.842/2014 and pending LP No.2/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod.

Manikandan @ Murukeshan Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 5125 OF 2022

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT LP 2/2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶5

MAGISTRATE ,KASARAGOD

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MANIKANDAN @ MURUKESHAN AGED 47 YEARS NADUKUZHI HOUSE, KOLACHY VILLAGE, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010

¶8

BY ADV M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

ADV M P PRASHANTH-PP

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner is the 3 rd accused in Crime No.842/2014 of Kasargod Police Station which was registered against him and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

2 . The prosecution case is that on 05/03/2014, accused Nos.1 and 2 have pledged fake gold ornaments weighing 118 grams in Kosamattam Finance and dishonestly induced CW1, the owner of Malabar Supreme Jewellery to pay an amount of Rs.2,41,000/-on the false promise that on redemption of gold ornaments, same will be handed over to CW1. Later the amount was paid, the gold ornaments pledged with Kosamattam Finance were retrieved and those were handed over to CW1 who later realized that the same were fake. Annexure 1 is the FIR and Annexure 2 is the final report submitted by the Police. Initially, cognizance thereon was taken by the Chief Judaical Magistrate

¶18

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶19

¶20

Court, Kasargod as C.C.No.609/2015 and in the trial conducted, accused Nos.1 and 2 have participated. The case against the petitioner, who is the 3 rd accused, was split up and the same is now pending as L.P.No.2/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod.

¶21

3 . Annexure A3 is the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.609/2015. As per the judgment both the accused persons who faced the trial court were found not guilty and they were acquitted. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner, in the such circumstances, seeking to quash the prosecution against the petitioner.

¶22

4 . Heard Sri.Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶23

5 . The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that consequent to the order of acquittal passed in

¶24

respect of the other accused persons, the substratum of the prosecution case itself is lost and hence no fruitful purpose will be

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶27

served by allowing the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the principles laid down by

¶28

this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552].

¶29

6 . On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contention by highlighting merely because of the reason that some of the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner cannot seek for an order to quash the proceedings against him.

¶30

7 . I have gone through the materials placed on record,

¶31

including Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 Final Report and Annexure A3 judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. It is discernible from Annexure A3 that, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, a categorical finding was made to the effect that, there is no evidence forthcoming to show that PW1/CW1 gave an amount of Rs.2,41,000/- to the accused for the purpose of retrieving the pledged gold ornaments from Kosamattam Finance.

¶32

It is also observed that there is no evidence indicating that the

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶35

gold ornaments pledged with the Kosamattam Finance were fake. In such circumstances, the order of acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 was passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶36

8 . When carefully scrutinizing the observations made by the learned Magistrate in the said judgment, and considering the impact of the same, I am of the view that, it affects the substratum of the Prosecution case. Eventhough the aforesaid finding is confined to the culpability of accused Nos.1 and 2, practically the same extends to the lack of culpability on the part of the petitioner as well. This is particularly because, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he made the aforesaid fake gold ornaments. However, when the persons who allegedly pledged the fake gold ornaments and handed it over to the CW1 were found to be not guilty of the offences on the ground that the transaction between the parties could not be established, I am of the view that, a successful prosecution as against the petitioner may not be possible. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the principles laid down by this Court in Moosa's case can

¶37

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶38

¶39

be applied.

¶40

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner/3 rd accused in Crime No.842/2014 of Kasargod Police Station including the proceedings in L.P.No.2/2022 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE

¶43

rpk

¶44

Crl.M.C No.5125 of 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5125/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 842/ 14 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET IN FIR IN CRIME NO 842/ 14 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CCNO 609/2015 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT KASARAGOD

Manikandan @ Murukeshan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan @ Murukeshan v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratheesh @ Charls Vs State of Kerala

Rohith J. Vestor Vs Dr. Stephin Muthayyan

Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Noushad.a. Vs Detective Inspector