Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings in Crl.MCs 1968/2019 and 3391/2013 alleging cheating and forgery. The High Court quashed proceedings applying the judgment where co-accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
All further proceedings against petitioners in Crl.MC No.1968/2019 and CC No.418/2012 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1968 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 418/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDOM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SAJEEV AGED 44 YEARS S/O KARUNAKARAN,ASHARIPARAMBIL(H),AYMANAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. P.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU SHRI.SOORAJ S
RESPONDENTS/STATE ADN DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION-685619.
3 GURUAMMAL @ VIJI, AGED 54 YEARS W/O LATE BHAGAVAT SINGH,RESIDING AT 111/85,MUTHAMMALCHOLA, CHINNAKANAL DESOM,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA M.N., PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3391/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 3391 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 418/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDOM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
JITHESH
AGED 33 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, AASARIPARAMBU (H), AYMANAM, KALLUMADA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.BIJU SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST WHO IS REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICL PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
WIFE OF LATE BHAGAVAT SINGH, RESIDING AT 111/185, MUTHAMMALCHOLA, CHINNAKANAL DESOM, IDUKKI., PIN 685618 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 02.09.2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2022 IN CLR.M.C. NO.3391/2013.
SMT. MAYA M.N., PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1968/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of August, 2023
ORDER
These two Crl.MC cases are filed by the 1st and 2nd accused in CC No.418/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam. The above cases were charge sheeted against the petitioners and three others alleging offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 415, 417, 420, 463 and 465 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
4
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
charge witness No.1. It is submitted that the accused by showing the original prize in the agreement in the stamp paper No.5597/2006 and by showing a less prize in the agreement written on the stamp paper bearing No.5596/2006 and also by making CW1 to believe that the agreement in both those stamp papers contain the same prize, caused the agreement written on the stamp paper No.5596/2006 to be registered by CW7. Thus, the accused acted together to grab the property of CW1 is the case.
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
5
8. “Points No1-7
The defacto complainant has set the law in motion by lodging complaint before the court. Pending investigation of the case he passed away. CW2and 3 are the other independent witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the overt act of the accused. In spite of taking coercive steps including the issuance of steps u/S 82 Cr.P.C CW2and 3 did not turn up hence their examination is dispensed with. CW4,5,7, and 8 were given up by A.P.P on the ground that their examination will not improve the case. PW1 is only an attester of Ext.P1 seizure mahazar which is prepared by the Investigation officer in the case. PW2 the then HC attached to the police station Santhanpra at the time of the incident of the case has registered the case under Ext.P2 F.I.R.
9. On analysis of the prosecution evidence it can be seen that no evidence is forthcoming to prove the overt act of the accused. The prosecution could not examine material witnesses in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove the nexus between the accused and the crime by adducing cogent and ending evidence.
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
6
10. On analysis of the evidence on record it can be seen that there is nothing in the prosecution evidence which will show that the accused have created forged documents for the purpose of cheating. The prosecution evidence does not constitute the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
11. Having regard on consideration of the entire evidence, I have arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused 1-4 are entitled to get the said benefit. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused 3-5 have committed the offences punishable u/S 120(B), 415,417, 420, 463, 465 :/W 5.34 of the LPC These points are answered accordingly.
12. Point No.8
That vide discussions in the fore going points I have found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused 3-5 have committed the offences punishable u/S 120(B), 415,417, 420, 463, 465 r/W S.34 of the I.P.C .In the result the accused 3-5 are found not guilty of the offences u/S 120(B), 415,417, 420, 463, 465 r/W S.34 of the I.P.C and are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/S 120(B), 415,417, 420, 463, 465 r/W S.34 of the I.P.C The accused 3-5 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond executed by them stand cancelled.
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
7
Case Against A1 and 2 is re-filed as C.C 418/2012.”
acquitted accused Nos.3 to 5 because there is no evidence available to proceed with the prosecution. This Court admitted these criminal miscellaneous cases and stayed the prosecution against the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above case. In the light of Annexure 2 judgment in Crl.M.C.No.1968/2019 (Annexure A4 in Crl.M.C.No. 3391/2013), I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of court. No purpose will be served if the prosecution is continued against the petitioners. It will be a judicial waste of time. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous cases also can be quashed in the light of the judgment dated 29.09.2012 in CC No.646/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
LP No.28/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam (CC No.418/2012) are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
9
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1968/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NEDUMKANDAM,IN CRIME NO.194/2007 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.646/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NEDUMKANDAM. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL MC NO.3391/2013.
CRL.MC Nos.1968 of 2019 & 3391 of 2013
10
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3391/2013
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.194/2007 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.418/2012 OF JFCM, NEDUMKANDOM ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.194/2008 FILED BEFORE TEH SUB COURT, KATTAPANA ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.646/2009 OF JFCM, NEDUMKANDAM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed in light of the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of evidence.
Whether continuing the prosecution after co-accused were acquitted would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Whether the judgment of acquittal in the earlier trial justifies quashing the current Crl.MC proceedings against the petitioners.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sajeev
Jithesh
State of Kerala
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
