Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4280
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BASIL PAUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 10858/2023
The court cannot quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C where the allegations require appreciation of materials produced by the investigation team.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - THEFT - NO PRIMA FACIE CASE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him for theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the allegations did not make out any offense against him and that the investigation materials did not indicate his involvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations raised by the petitioner required appreciation of materials produced by the investigation team and that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C could not be resorted to.
Issues: Whether the allegations made out an offense against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations raised by the petitioner required appreciation of materials produced by the investigation team and that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C could not be resorted to.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, reserving the petitioner's liberty to apply for discharge in accordance with law.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.612/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-III, Perumbavoor. Petitioner is the second accused in the said case. As per the prosecution allegation, the accused had, on 26.05.2018, committed theft of six sacks of nutmeg and 20 Kg of nutmeg mace having a total value of 58,000/- from the defacto complainant’s residence and thereby committed the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Sri. V.John Mani, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations do not make out any of the offence against the petitioner. It was also submitted that the materials collected by the investigation do not indicate the involvement of the petitioner at all and therefore, the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court.
3. Smt. Sreeja. V, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the case is one which requires investigation of evidence and therefore, invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought not to be resorted to.
4. Since the allegations raised by the petitioner require appreciation of materials produced by the investigation team, I am of the view that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be resorted to. However, the petitioner, if so advised, will be at liberty to file an appropriate application for discharge if the charge has not yet been framed as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Therefore, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to apply for discharge, in accordance with law, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. Since the case is of the year 2018, appropriate steps shall be initiated by the court to dispose of the matter at the earliest in a time bound manner.
Crl.M.C. is dismissed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10858/2023 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF F.I.R DATED 13.07.2018 Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIS Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
30.07.2018 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 13/06/2023 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE PERMIT.
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF JOB CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPANY
