Petitioners accused under POA Act sought quashing of prosecution after co-accused were acquitted due to lack of prosecution evidence and the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating no subsisting grievance.
Quashed the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C No.1166 of 2022.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 2267 OF 2023
IN SC 1166/2022 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1NISHAD
AGED36YEARS
S/OASSAINAR,CHOLASSERYVEEDU,CHERIYAMKOOTTIL,
MANKADA,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN-679324.
2SHAMSUDEEN
AGED28YEARS
S/OIBRAHIM,CHOLASSERYVEEDU,CHERIYAMKOOTTIL,
MANKADA,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN-679324.
BYADVS.
C.DINESH
RESHMIVIJU
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN-682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679324.3YADHUKRISHNA
AGED26YEARS
S/OANILKUMAR,KONDAPUATHHOUSE,KOZHIKKOTTUPARAMB,
VELLILADESOM,MANKADAAMSOM,PERINTHALMANNATALUK,
MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN-679324.
BYADVS.
SRI.SHAMMINAVASP
SRI.MPPRASHANTH,PP
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
2
THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
10.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
3
ORDER
The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
files of the Special Court SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri. In the aforesaid case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 325 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act. After investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and the case was committed to the Court of Session and was numbered as S.C.No.870 of 2019. As many as four persons were arrayed as accused in the final report, and the petitioners herein were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3. The petitioners failed to appear before the Sessions Court, and the case against them was split up. The trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2 and 4, and by Annexure-D judgment dated 29.7.2022, they were found not guilty of the offence and were acquitted of all charges.
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
4
Annexure-E affidavit asserting that he has no subsisting grievance against
the petitioners and that he has no objection to quashing the proceedings.
has relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police1 , Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala2 , Jalalu Rajan and Anr v. State of Kerala3 and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of
Kerala4 and it was urged that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners herein would serve no purpose. Reliance is also placed on
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,5 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab6 , Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab7 , and it is argued that on the basis of
the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, this Court will be justified in terminating the proceedings.
Annexure-D judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne
out from Annexure-C that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed
in tune with the prosecution case. The Court below, after meticulous
1 2006 (1) KLJ 349
2 2013 KHC 336
3 2013 KHC 177
4 2011 (2) KHC 812
5 (2019) 5 SCC 688
6 (2012) 10 SCC 303
7 2014 (6) SCC 466
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
5
analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused were entitled to acquittal under Section 235 (1) of the Code. As held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police8 , 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 de facto complainant has also filed an affidavit
stating that he has no subsisting grievance.
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.
8 2006 (1) KLT 552
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
6
Crime No.184 of 2018 of the Mankada Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners now pending as S.C No.1166 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri, are
quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
Sru
Crl.M.C.No.2267 OF 2023
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2267/2023
PETITIONERANNEXURES
AnnexureATRUECOPYOFTHEF.I.R.DATED30.10.2018ON
THEFILEOFTHEJUDICIALFIRSTCLASS
MAGISTRATE-II,PERINTHALMANNA.
AnnexureBFINALREPORTALONGWITHMEMORANDUMOF
EVIDENCEDATED16.9.2019SUBMITTEDBYTHE2ND
RESPONDENT.
AnnexureCTRUECOPYOFTHEDEPOSITIONOFPW1/3RD
RESPONDENT,PW2,CW3ANDPW4DATED27.7.2022.
AnnexureDCOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINSC870OF2019DATED
29.7.2022OFTHESPECIALCOURTOFSC/ST(POA)
ACTCASES,MANJERI.
AnnexureETHEORIGINALAFFIDAVITEXECUTEDBYTHE
DE-FACTOCOMPLAINANTDATED23.11.2022.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings against petitioners can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given acquittal of co-accused and affidavit dispelling grievance from/complainant.
Whether the substratum of the case against the petitioners has been shattered due to acquittal of co-accused and lack of subsisting grievance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceExplained¶9
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2006 (1) KLJ 349
Abbas T.K. v. State of KeralaReferred¶9
Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala, 2013 KHC 336
Jalalu Rajan and Anr v. State of KeralaReferred¶9
Jalalu Rajan and Anr v. State of Kerala, 2013 KHC 177
Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of KeralaReferred¶9
Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala, 2011 (2) KHC 812
State of M.P. v. Laxmi NarayanReferred¶9
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nishad
Shamsudeen
Yadhukrishna
State of Kerala
Station House Officer Mankada Police Station
Yadhukrishna
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Parties & counsel