Allowed

Anas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2023Crl.MC/1112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. No. 1112 of 2023 wherein the High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the acquittal of a co-accused and victim affidavits shattered the substratum of the case, rendering further trial futile.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.937 of 2018 under Crime No.69 of 2012 were quashed.

Anas Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE12THDAYOFJUNE2023/22NDJYAISHTA,1945

¶4

CRL.MCNO.1112OF2023

¶5

AGAINSTTHEORDERINS.C.NO.937/2018OFADDITIONALDISTRICTCOURT&
IADDITIONALMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,THALASSERY

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNOS.1:-

¶7

1ANAS,AGED32YEARS
RESIDINGATMUKRINTAKATHUHOUSE,IRIKKURAMSOM,
IRIKKURTOWN,KANNURDISTRICT,PIN-670593

¶8

BYADVC.K.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :-

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶11

2STATIONHOUSEOFFICER
IRIKKURPOLICESTATION,KANNURDIST.
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031

¶12

3 CHERIYA VALAPPINAKATH THASLEEMA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. MOOSAN, CHERIYA VALAPPINAKATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670593

¶13

4M.M.MOHANAN
AGED66YEARS
S/O.KUNJIRAMANNAMBIAR,CHENTHARAHOUSE,KALLIADAMSOM,
OORATHURDESOM,IRITTYTALUK,KANNURDISTICT,PIN-670593

¶14

SRIVIPINNARAYANSRPP

¶15

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON12.06.2023,
THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C No. 1123 of 2023

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein is the first accused in S.C.No.937 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur. In the aforesaid case, he is facing prosecution for the offenses punishable under Sections 448 and 436 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.69

¶20

of 2012 of Irikkur Police Station.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 21.02.2012 at about 7.30 am, the accused, in the final report in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass and committed mischief by fire and caused a loss of Rs.25,000/-.

¶22

In Annexure-A2 final report, four persons have been arrayed as accused, and the petitioner was the 1st accused. The petitioner was not available for trial, and hence the case against the third accused was proceeded with. By Annexure-A3 judgment dated 10.06.2019 in S.C.No.436 of 2015, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence and proceeded to acquit the 3rd accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner states that, thereafter, the disputes have been resolved and refers to Annexures-A4 & A5 affidavits filed by the injured

¶23

Crl.M.C No. 1123 of 2023

¶24

¶25

witnesses wherein they have stated that they have no further grievance against the petitioner.

¶26

It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused that this petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case against the petitioners has been shattered. The petitioners also contend that the injured witnesses have filed Annexure-A4 and A5 affidavits asserting that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings.

¶27

Sri.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police¹ [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336],

¶28

Jalalu Rajan and Anr v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] and it was urged that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner herein would serve no purpose. Reliance is also placed on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,² Gian Singh v. State of Punjab³ , Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab⁴ , and it is

¶29

argued that on the basis of the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, this Court will be justified in terminating the proceedings.

¶30

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

[(2019) 5 SCC 688]

¶32

(2012) 10 SCC 303

¶33

¶34

2 3

¶35

4 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶36

Crl.M.C No. 1123 of 2023

¶37

¶38

I have gone through the Annexure-1 final report and Annexure-3

¶39

judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from Annexure-3 that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed in tune with the prosecution case. The Court below, after meticulous analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused were entitled to acquittal under Section 235 of the Code. As held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost, is an exception to the above rule. In the case on hand, the victims have filed an affidavit stating that he has no subsisting grievance.

¶40

I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioners herein to undergo the ordeal of a trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time, which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction are nil in view of the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant. Furthermore, no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that this Court will be well justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code and in quashing the proceedings.

¶41

Crl.M.C No. 1123 of 2023

¶42

¶43

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-2 final report in Crime No. 69 of 2012 of the Irikkur Police Station and all further proceedings

¶44

pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No.937 of 2018 on

¶45

the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur, are quashed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶48

SMA

¶49

Crl.M.C No. 1123 of 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1112/2023

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

¶53

AnnexureA1THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.
69/2012ONTHEFILEOFIRIKKURPOLICESTATION,
KANNURDISTRICTDT.21/2/2012
AnnexureA2THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIME
NO.69/2012ONTHEFILEOFIRIKKURPOLICE
STATION,KANNURDISTRICT
AnnexureA3THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINSC.NO.
436/2015ONTHEFILEOFASSISTANTSESSIONS
JUDGE,KANNUR
Annexure4THEAFFIDAVITSWORNBYTHE3RDRESPONDENT
Annexure5THEAFFIDAVITSWORNBYTHE4THRESPONDENT
AnnexureA6THETRUECOPYOFTHEMEMOOFEVIDENCE

Anas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afsal Vs Abdul Rahman

Livin Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Khan, Vs State of Kerala

Gavin. M.I Vs State of Kerala

Bhushar Jamhar Vs State of Kerala

Mohamed Sha Vs State of Kerala