The Kerala HC dismissed a criminal appeal seeking to quash prosecution proceedings. The court held that the petitioner, a specific accused in a public protest case, cannot avail the acquittal of co-accused as it relies on specific overt acts and victim identification. Trial must proceed.
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
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 812 OF 2022
[Crime No.202/2005 of the Cantonment Police Station, C.C.No.1280/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananathapuram]
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS TC 18/2021, CHILANTHIVARATHU VEEDU,
KUNNUMPARA P.O., THRUKKANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.812 of 2022
:-2-:
O R D E R
Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.202/2005 of
the Cantonment Police Station registered on 22.06.2005 alleging offences under Sections 143,147,148,332 read with 149 IPC and Section 138 read with 52 of the Kerala Police Act. The precise allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 22.6.2005 at 11.30 am, the petitioner and other accused belonging to BJP party conducted a demonstration through the public road registering protest against hike in petrol and diesel prices and proceeded to the AG's Office and in disobedience of the lawful direction issued by the police officials, trespassed upon the AG's Office premises and caused injuries to CW6. It is specifically alleged that when they entered the AG's Office premises, the second accused, who carried the flag with him, hit the left hand of CW6 with the flag stick, causing injuries. After filing the final report, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.572/2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananathapuram. Even though the
Crl.M.C.No.812 of 2022
:-3-:
petitioner was arrested and released on bail, at the time of trial, he was absconding. By Annexure 2 judgment dated 20th September 2012, accused Nos.1,3,18,20,21,24,27,29,32,38, 39,41 and 42 were
found not guilty and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The case against the remaining accused was refiled as C.C.No.1280/2012. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him on the ground of acquittal of the co-accused in Annexure 2 judgment.
Crl.M.C.No.812 of 2022
:-4-:
another words, identity of the second accused is very important for the prosecution. If the petitioner is present in the court and put to
the witnesses, possibility of identifying the real culprit cannot be ruled out.
In the circumstances, this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings. Annexure 2 judgment cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner. In the nature of the allegations, petitioner will have to face trial. Crl.M.C. is bereft of merits and is dismissed.
SD/-
K.HARIPAL, Judge
MBS/
Crl.M.C.No.812 of 2022
:-5-:
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 812/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 202/2005 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 3.7.2005 Annexure2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JFCM COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CC NO. 572/2005 DATED 20.9.2012 Annexure3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS SEARCH RESULT OF CC NO. 1280/2012 OF THE JFCM COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TAKEN FROM THE E-COURT SERVICE DATED 2.2.2022 Annexure4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.5.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner accused who was acquitted of others in an unlawful assembly can quash proceedings based on co-accused acquittal.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SANTHOSH KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
K.HARIPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
