Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen
S. Jayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
The 2nd accused in C.C. No. 4 of 2020 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance Thiruvananthapuram), has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused, who was the Councillor of Adoor Municipality from 2005 to 2010, in order to obtain D&O license to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality, of which Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma was the building owner as per the Municipal records. He prepared a forged consent letter in stamp paper Nos.03AA708144, 03AA708145, 05AA900001, in the name of the said Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, who had expired on 30-08-1995, used the same as genuine, by submitting the same before the Municipal office, Adoor and obtained D&O license in file No. 111-306/07 for the year 2006-07 on the basis of the forged consent letter on 16-01-2007 to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality.
Participation in a conspiracy to obfuscate criminal activity can result in liability, even without direct involvement in the initial crime, based on prima facie evidence of culpability.
The court concluded that the prima facie evidence warranted a trial against the accused for serious allegations of forgery and conspiracy related to illegal admissions, despite the defense's claims.
A court may not quash criminal proceedings merely based on accusations of falsehood; evidence establishing a prima facie case necessitates trial to ascertain involvement.
The court held that strong suspicion of involvement in corruption necessitates trial, and quashing proceedings is not warranted based on innocence arguments.
The court established that pending civil proceedings do not preclude criminal liability for forgery and conspiracy when sufficient prima facie evidence exists.
The existence of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings for the same cause, as the standards of proof differ between civil and criminal cases.
The court affirmed that conspiracy and forgery can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, establishing the appellant's involvement in obtaining a loan through deceitful means.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of prima facie evidence and mala-fide intention in a civil dispute can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and forgery necessitates proceeding with trial, emphasizing the narrow scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
