Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9539
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
MUHAMMED FASIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/1508/2021
SRI.SALIM V., SMT.A.M.FOUSI
The absence of evidence linking an accused to criminal charges, especially following acquittal of co-accused, can justify quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections List - The court found that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence linking the accused to the charges, leading to the conclusion that continuing proceedings would constitute an abuse of the court process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused in a case involving criminal conspiracy and rioting. Other accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence, prompting the petitioner to seek quashing of the proceedings against him, referencing the previous acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the charges, aligning him with co-accused who had been acquitted. It concluded that prolonging proceedings would be futile and abusive.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed based on the acquittal of co-accused who faced similar charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal of co-accused indicated a lack of substantive evidence, warranting the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner to prevent abuse of the court process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Crl.M.C and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2021 Petitioner is the accused in L.P.C No.25 of
2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The case had originated from Crime No.461 of 2008 of the Pavaratty Police Station registered against the petitioner and ten others for offences under Sections 120 (b), 153A, 143, 147, 148, 447, and 427 r/w 149 of IPC . The allegation is that the accused had, in further of their criminal conspiracy, had formed into an unlawful assembly and committed roiting by trespassing into the house of the de facto complainant and vandalising his house and had thereby caused damages to the tune of Rs.8,000/-. On submission of final report, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.522 of 2013, wherein the petitioner figured as the 7th accused.
When the case was listed for trial, all other accused, except accused Nos.3, 4 and the petitioner participated. By Annexure A3 judgment, the accused who faced trial were acquitted, finding the prosecution to have failed in substantiating its allegations. The case against the absconding accused was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.372 of 2015. Due to the persistent absence of the petitioner, the case against him was included in the Long Pending Register. Later, the third accused approached this court seeking to quash the case against them on the strength of Annexure A3 judgment. By Annexure A4 order, the said Crl.M.C was allowed by this Court.
2. When the Crl.M.C came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the trial court, was granted bail and his case re-numbered as C.C.No.609 of 2021. The prayer in the Crl.M.C is to quash the proceedings against the petitioner on the strength of Annexure A3 judgment and Annexure A4 order. 3. In Annexure A4 order, this Court had taken note of the finding in Annexure A3 judgment, of there being no evidence to connect the accused with the impugned charges. It was noted that on a mere reading of Annexure A3 judgment it is crystal clear that the substratum of the prosecution has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-accused and hence, no meaningful purpose will be served by prolonging the impugned criminal proceedings. In my considered opinion, the petitioner being in the same footing as the third accused, further proceedings against him will amount to an abuse of process of court.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in L.P.C.No.25 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A-1 CERTFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
461/2008 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 461/2008 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A-3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2015 IN C.C No. 522/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHAVAKKAD.
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-07-2015 IN CRL.M.C NO. 4663/2015
