Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
Santhosh philip, s/o. Chakko – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by the sole accused to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.9/2022 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kottayam, arising out of crime No.1/2004 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kottayam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, who is the complainant in the above case.
3. Tracing the genesis of the case, as on 31.12.1999, a crime was registered by Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 408 , 409, 467, 468 and 120A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused, acting on a complaint, vide CMP 8129/99 filed by the 3rd respondent/complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. The allegation in the complaint was that the accused named therein misappropriated Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). During investigation of the said crime, CW28 transferred the case to VACB, Eastern Range Police Station, Ko
The existence of sufficient prima facie evidence against an accused necessitates trial proceedings despite allegations of procedural delays in criminal cases.
Delay in filing a complaint can be fatal to the prosecution, especially when the accused's involvement is not substantiated.
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC denied where cheating allegations show deception from inception, accused absconding, charge sheet suppressed, and civil recovery co-exists without barring criminal pro....
Mere delay in the conclusion of the trial is not a ground to quash the proceedings, especially when the offenses alleged are serious in nature and cause loss to the exchequer of the State.
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction, confirming that prima facie evidence supported the charges of forgery and misappropriation despite the petitioner's defenses.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
The constitutional right to a speedy trial does not automatically lead to quashing proceedings unless the delay is solely attributable to the prosecution, especially if the accused contributed to the....
Inordinate delay in filing of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law.
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
