The High Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner in a Section 304-B IPC case, holding that analyzing cases of previous accused revealed insufficient evidence and hostile witnesses, making trial an abuse of process.
The criminal petition was allowed and proceedings in Sessions Case No.153 of 2008 were 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5026 of 2011
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.5 in Sessions Case No.153 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, at present on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam.
The facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly are as follows: The 2 nd respondent lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.88 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. against the petitioner/A.5 and four others. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate numbered the charge sheet as P.R.C.No.33 of 2008 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Visakhapatnam. The learned Sessions Judge has taken on file the case under the above referred Sections and numbered it as Sessions Case No.153 of 2008 and made over the same to the Mahila Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 have faced trial in S.C.No.153 of 2008 and they were acquitted.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that mere acquittal of the other accused is not a ground for quashing of the proceedings.
This Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleges to have been committed by the petitioner; (2) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner; (3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; or (4) if the registration of crime and continuation of investigation would amount to misuse of process of law; and (5) to meet the ends of justice.
To substantiate the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a copy of judgment in Sessions Case No.153 of 2008. A perusal of the same reveals that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 faced the trial. After full fledged trial, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, did not support the case of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.2. The trial Court gave a specific finding that the testimony of P.W.2 (Investigating Officer) is no way helpful to the prosecution. No specific allegation is made against the petitioner/A.5 in the complaint, F.I.R. or charge sheet. No purpose will be served by forcing the petitioner/A.5 to face the trial.
In order to arrive at just and reasonable conclusion, this court is placing reliance on the following decisions:
[1] i. Thallapalli Rajaiah @ Pogula Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P. wherein this Court held at para Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment as follows:
8. The petitioner was said to be absconding, however, he was arrested on 10.6.1999 and has been in jail as the bail
application is said to have been dismissed. Under the circumstances, inasmuch as same witnesses have to be examined there is no even a remote possibility of the trial ending in the conviction of the petitioner herein. It would be abuse of the process of the Court if the petitioner is compelled to go through the ritual of facing the trial.
9. Following the judgment of this Court in the case of Janayavula Rambabu Vs. State of A.P.{1992 (1) APLJ 343}, I think it is a fit case where the proceedings in the relevant P.R.C. can be quashed.
[2] ii. Janayavula Rambabu Vs. State of A. P wherein at para
No.5 it was held as follows:
5. The same witnesses have to be examined even during the trial in S.C.162 of 1991 and I find that no useful purpose will be served except wasting the Court’s time and the public money by proceeding with trial against the petitioner in S.C.162/91. I feel that such procedure only results in abuse of process of Court and nothing else. Hence I feel that it is desirable that proceedings in S.C.162/91 should be quashed in the interest of justice.”
[3] iii. Azghar Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A. P wherein this Court at para No.6 of the judgment observed as follows:
“Previously, this Court has concurred with the view taken by Sri Justice M. Ranga Reddy. I once again state that the principles laid down by the Sri Justice M. Ranga Reddy followed by Sri Justice Vaman Rao are on the right lines. If the prosecution story is not adhered to before the Court in respect of the accused whose cases have been split up, then it must be taken that they are not speaking truth and they are having reservations. Moreover, when the witness turned hostile, it cannot be imagined that he will again speak to the prosecution story and mention the name of the accused person, who has been absconding and who has made appearance subsequently. There is no slightest possibility of mentioning the name of the accused by the witness, if they have not spoken to already regarding the overt acts of the absconding accused. Viewed from this angle, I disagree with the reasoning mentioned in G. VEnkataratnam Kumar’s case (supra) and I agree with the reasoning mentioned in the aforesaid decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of considered view that it is waste to continue the proceedings and it is abuse of process of the Court if the trial were continued knowing fully well that the witnesses have already turned hostile in judicial proceedings. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be
quashed and I, accordingly quash the proceedings. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.”
[4] iv. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Sing h wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“……..Once the main accused who is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy and who had the motive to kill the deceased was discharged, and when that matter had attained finality, the learned single Judge was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent.”
The facts of the case on hand are almost identical to the cases referred to above.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of [5] [6] Punja b and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.5 in Sessions Case No.153 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam to secure the ends of justice.
In the result, this criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Sessions Case No.153 of 2008 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (Old) at present on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Sessions J udge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J th 8 August, 2014.
siva
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5026 of 2011
th 8 August, 2014.
siva
[1] 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 174 A.P. [2] 1992 (1) APLJ 343 [3] 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 951 (AP) [4] AIR 2005 SC 268 [5] AIR 1960 SC 866 [6] AIR 1992 SC 604
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and other accused are acquitted.
Whether compelling an accused to face trial would amount to abuse of process of court and waste of judicial time.
Whether quashing proceedings serves the ends of justice in the given circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thallapalli Rajaiah @ Pogula Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P.Relied on¶11
2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 174 A.P.
Janayavula Rambabu Vs. State of A.P.Relied on¶14
1992 (1) APLJ 343
Azghar Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A.Relied on¶18
2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 951 (AP)
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh SinghRelied on¶21
AIR 2005 SC 268 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/A.5
Accused No.2 (2nd Respondent)
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
