Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49752
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
DHANUSH NARAYANA AYYAR @ DHANUSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1509 OF 2021 | CRIME NO.285/2006
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt; this includes the necessity of showing inducement and dishonesty from the inception, which was not established in this case. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated in a case concerning alleged misappropriation and cheating related to chitti subscriptions where co-accused were acquitted, weakening the prosecution's case against him.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner, and thus continuing the trial was deemed futile.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction could stand in light of the acquittal of co-accused and lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that failure to prove essential aspects of a criminal charge necessitates quashing of proceedings against an accused.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed, and all proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SHRI.RAFEEK. V.K., SRI.U.M.HASSAN, SMT.P.PARVATHY, SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED, SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY, SMT.NAZRIN HALLAJ
For the Respondents: SRI. AJITH MURALI
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and nature of allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against prosecution continuation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and prior judgments. (Para 5) |
| 4. ruling to quash ongoing proceedings. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025 Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.285 of 2006 registered at the Walayar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The crime was registered on the allegation that the 4th accused conducted a chitti business and the other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly induced people to join the chitties and collected huge amounts towards subscription. It is further alleged that after collecting the amounts, the accused absconded and did not refund the amount collected.
2. On completion of the investigation and submission of Final Report, the case was taken on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad as C.C.No.97 of 2007. The 1st accused died in the meanwhile and the charges against him abated. The 3rd accused faced trial and was acquitted as per Annexure 1 Judgment .
Subsequently, the 4th accused faced trial and got acquitted as per Annexure 2 Judgment . The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the strength of the judgment of acquittal rendered in the case of his co-
accused.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, in the light of the conclusive findings in Annexures 1 and 2 judgments, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost and no purpose will be served by compelling the petitioner to face trial. In support of this argument, reference is made to paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of Annexure 1 Judgment . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on being contacted, the de facto complainant stated that he is not keen on prosecuting the petitioner.
5. A close scrutiny of Annexures 1 and 2 judgments reveals that, after considering the evidence and other relevant factors, the court below came to the definite conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. The contextually relevant findings at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of Annexure
2 judgment reads as under;
“12. Prosecution alleged that the accused cheated the subscribers without repaying the chitty amount to them. PW1 to PW4 and PW6 to PW13 are the subscribers of the chitty. None of the witness has a case that the accused induced them to join the chitty. There is no evidence available on record to prove that the accused induced them to join the chitty. Evidence would not show that the accused induced the subscribers to deliver the chitty amount. On a bare reading of section 420 of IPC , it is plain that in order to attract an offence under section 420, there must invariably be cheating of a person by the accused person and thereby dishonestly induced such person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. The accused should have the dishonest intention to cheat the subscribers from the very inception. The evidence of the witness would not show that the accused had such dishonest intention from the beginning itself. The evidence on record would show that the ingredients of the offence of cheating have not been made out against the accused. Hence the prosecution failed to prove offence under section 420 against the accused cheated the subscribers of Sree Mookambika Chits.
13. Prosecution also alleged criminal breach of trust against the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused misappropriated the amount which is entrusted to them by the subscribers of the chitty. Even though recovery was effected as per Exhibit P5(a) statement of accused the prosecution failed to brought evidence to connect the accused with the
