SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KERALA HIGH COURT
N. Nagaresh, J.
Vishnu K.B. – Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala Represented
By Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.Pet No.678 of 2023
Decided on 4.9.2023

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:V.V. Surendran and P.A. Harish, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4:Resmi Nandanan, Advocate
For the Respondent: M.P. Prasanth, Public Prosecutor

IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – If there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed offence, order of discharge cannot be passed and accused has to face trial.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Discharge of accused – Petitioner stands charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 308 and 149 of IPC – For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused, Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in exercise of which it can determine question whether material on record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which conviction is reasonably possible – Only prima facie case is to be seen – Whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at stage of discharge – Probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into – If there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed offence, order of discharge cannot be passed and accused has to face trial – Petition dismissed. (Paras 15 and 16)

Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crl.M.P. No.66/2023 in S.C.704/2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chavakkad, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner would submit that the offences alleged in the case are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he is not involved in the case and has not committed any offence. The de facto complainants are aware of the same and they had intimated this fact to the police authorities. However, the investigating authorities did not take that into consideration and arbitrarily retained the petitioner in the array of the accused.

3. The de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner or removing the petitioner from the array of the accused. They have filed a sworn affidavit before a Notary Public to the above effect. The de facto complainants have no objection in exonerating the petitioner from the case, while the matter is pending as C.P.No.60/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kunnamkulam.

4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 before this Court, wherein affidavits of the de facto complainants were also produced. This Court by order dated 01.03.2021 dismissed the same with liberty to seek discharge before the Trial Court.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.66/2023 before the Court of the Sessions seeking discharge. The Sessions Court has dismissed the application by order dated 11.04.2023. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.

6. The petitioner submits that it was on a mistaken identity that the petitioner’s name was mentioned by the complainants. But, later realising the fault, the defacto complainants themselves have given intimation to the Investigating Officer/ Police. However, in the Final Report the petitioner was included as the 3rd accused. The affidavits of the de facto complainants/injured clearly revealed that the revision petitioner is not involved in the case. The de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner from the case.

7. Public Prosecutor entered appearance and resisted the revision petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filing Crl.M.C. No.179/2021. This Court did not grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. This Court only directed the petitioner to file application for discharge. This Court, while considering this revision, should be confined to the legality of the order passed by the court below in the application for discharge submitted by the petitioner.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

9. The petitioner stands chargesheeted in S.C.No. 704/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrayed as an accused by an error committed by the de facto complainants and the de facto complainants have filed notarised affidavits before the court below. The de facto complainants have appeared before this Court and have also stated that the petitioner is not involved in the crime.

10. I find that with a prayer to quash the Charge Sheet, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 and this Court did not grant the relief. This Court, however, directed the petitioner to seek discharge from the court below. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the court below and the court below has passed order dated 11.04.2023 in Crl.M.P No.66/2023.

11. In the said order, the Assistant Sessions Judge found that while considering the discharge application, the Court will have to look into whether there are sufficient materials to presume that the accused has committed the offence as alleged. It cannot look

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top