2005 Supreme(Ker) 763

Judges : P.R.RAMAN,R.BASANT,M.N.KRISHNAN
T.Moosa - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Inspector of Police - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C.Nos.8573 of 2002, 3102, 3300, 3377, 3460, 3468, 3544, 3549 & 3579 of 2004, 55, 56, 1053, 1067 & 1078 of 2005
Decided On : 12/23/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioners: S.U. Nazar, K.A. Rasheed, Advocates. For the Respondents: D.G.P. Madhavan Nambiar, Advocate.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section.482 and 403 - Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed under S.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein on the ground that the co-accused in the respective cases were acquitted on trial. The case of the petitioners who were absconders were separated and are now proceeded with in their respective cases. The co-accused against whom case was proceeded with earlier were finally acquitted on appreciation of the evidence in each of the cases above. It was contended that as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of any of them, no useful purpose will be served by conducting trial against them and it will be an abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice further proceedings against the petitioners is to be quashed. In support thereof reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar v. State of Kerala reported in Crl. M.C. Nos. 1053, 1067 & 1078/2005 came up for consideration before a Learned Judge of this Court who after referring to the decisions in Joy v. State of Kerala, Chellappan v. State of Kerala, Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, Felix v. State & Others and also Arun Kumar's case cited supra, was of the view that there is apparent conflict in the Division Bench and Single Bench rulings of this Court and the matter required to be referred to a Full Bench - Held No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complainant, the court may examine the question of fact. The object of exercise of the power being to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice, it follows that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law. The High Court cannot assume the role of a trial court and embark upon enquiry as regards the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the accusation based on reappreciation of the evidence. The inherent powers of the High Court reserved and recognised under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sweeping and awesome; but such posers can be invoked only (a) to give effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (b) to prevent abuse of process of any court or, (c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such powers may have to be exercised in an appropriate case to render justice even beyond the law. Where the Code provides methods and procedures to deal with the given situation, in the absence of exceptional and compelling reasons, invocation of the powers under S.482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure is not necessary or permissible - The rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial is that where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial.. So long as no inconsistencies or contradictions or infirmities were brought out to discredit the witnesses merely because the co-accused was acquitted in the prior trial, case against the absconding accused cannot be thrown out. The case against the absconding accused should be tried and decided on its own evidence unless the evidence was specially recorded under S.299 Cr.P.C. The power under S.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to prevent the trial of the accused solely by referring to the overt act played by the accused as spoken to by witnesses in the case of the co-accused and cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C. quash the proceedings and prevent the trial - . In the light of what is stated above, each of the cases is to be considered by the learned Single Judge exercising the jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C. Court notice that interim orders of stay of trial were passed in the above said cases. Hence the Office will take steps for posting the above cases before appropriate Bench to expedite the - disposal.