The prosecution must establish its case with sufficient evidence to sustain charges under the Indian Penal Code; failure to produce essential documents can lead to a quashing of proceedings.

ORDER

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2024 Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.13 of 2000 registered at the Kumbla Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code , now pending as C.C.No.482 of 2018 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner based on the judgment of acquittal rendered in the case of accused Nos.1 and 3.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, with the dishonest intention of cheating persons desirous of purchasing vehicles and finance companies issuing loans for such purchase, after changing the registration numbers and forging RC Books sold certain old vehicles, claiming them to be new vehicles.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused, as would be evident from the discussion at paragraph Nos.21 and 25 of Annexure A3 judgment.

4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. A perusal of paragraph No.21 of Annexure C judgment reveals that the trial court, after the evaluation of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, found several material infirmities, which were sufficient to discard the entire prosecution story. The fact that charge witness Nos.1 to 5, who are the material witnesses, were not available to give evidence was also taken into account. The judgment also reveals that the RTO officials were not questioned during investigation and site as witnesses. Moreover, many of the prosecution witnesses examined turned hostile. The trial court therefore rightly held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused had dishonestly induced the persons cheated, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 420 is not made out. As far as the offence under Section 8 is concerned, the discussion at paragraph 25 of Annexure C reveals that the prosecution had failed to produce the original RC Books, without which it was not possible to decide whether forgery was committed. Pertinently, even the documents that were alleged to have been forged by the accused were not produced.

6. The above discussion in Annexure C leaves no room for doubt that the substratum of prosecution case is lost. As such, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution against the petitioner.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.482 of 2018 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, as against the petitioner, is quashed.