The High Court allowed a Special Leave Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against the petitioner after co-accused were acquitted, ruling that the prosecution's case had lost its substratum.
Further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 395/2020 pending as LPC No. 178/2017 are quashed.
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.
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020
CRIME NO.665/2007 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT LPC 178/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/S:
SHAFEER R. AGED 40 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KHADER, M.K. HOUSE, KOOLIYANKAL, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG ALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.HRITHWIK.C.S, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Crl.M.C. No. 1785 of 2020
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2023
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020 3
continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court is the submission.
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020 4
prosecution case is shattered by the judgement of acquittal of the co-accused that could be taken into account while considering the request to quash the proceedings. After going through the judgment of the trial court, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of court. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the judgment by which the co-accused is acquitted:
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020 5
is not an essential factor in a criminal prosecution. But absence of proof of motive demands careful scrutiny and deeper analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Existence of a motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law, but it is always a relevant factor which will be taken into consideration by the courts as it will render assistance to the courts while analyzing the prosecution evidence and detecting the guilt of accused. Here as I stated, the identity of accused No.2 who is facing trial itself cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in connection with the incident. Hence, for the above reasons, I am of the view that accused Nos. 2 is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence these points are found against the prosecution.”
Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 395/2020 which was pending as LPC No. 178/2017 on the file
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020 6
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg arising from Crime No. 665/2007 of Hosdurg Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
CRL.MC NO. 1785 OF 2020
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1785/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 665 OF 2007 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE AII A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 665 OF 2007 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.1.2017 IN C.C. NO. 1993 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, HOSDURG.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the continuation of prosecution against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process of court after acquittal of co-accused.
Whether shattering of the substratum of the prosecution case by acquittal of co-accused warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceReferred¶30
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552)
Abbas T.K. v. State of KeralaReferred¶30
Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 336)
Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of KeralaReferred¶30
Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 812)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shafeer R.
State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Hosdurg
P.V. Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Parties & counsel
