SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No.180/2013 Of Elathur … vs By Advs on 6 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.7718 OF 2019(D)

AGAINST CC 31/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS KOYILANDY

CRIME NO.180/2013 OF Elathur Police Station , Kozhikode

PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

SEENATH K.M.
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. THAHIR V.,C., VADAKKECHERIKKAL, PARAMBATH,
THALKULATHUR P.O., KOKHIKODE, PIN CODE-673 317

BY ADVS.
SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
SMT.IRENE PARAMEL

RESPONDENTS/COMLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

2 THAHIR,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. IMICHI MAMMNU,VADAKKECHERIKKAL, PARAMBATH,
THALKULATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE,-673 317

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7718/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
Crl.M.C.No.7718 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the wife of the 2 nd respondent (A1) and the

defacto complainant in Crime No. 180/2013 of Elathur Police Station,

which was registered against the 2nd respondent (husband of the petitioner),

his mother and his sister for offences registered under Secs.498A and 406

r/w.Sec.34 of the SectionIPC. Original accused Nos.2 and 3 faced trial. After

meticulous appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial court concluded in

Anx. A2 judgment dated 11.01.2018 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Koyilandi in C.C.No.843/2013 that there is no evidence to connect

the said co-accused persons with the impugned criminal charges and had

accordingly, acquitted the said co-accused. Paragraphs 6 to 11 of Anenxure-

A2 judgment read as follows:-

“6.Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused subjected PW1 to
cruelty by demanding more money and
gold ornaments?

2. Whether the accused misappropriated
gold ornaments of PW1 without the
consent and knowledge of her for their
own use?

3. If so, what is the proper order or
sentence?

Crl.M.C.No.7718/2019 3

7. Point No.1 and 2:- For the sake of convenience and
brevity, these points are considered together. In order to
bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the defacto complainant
who stated that Ext.P1 complaint was given due to
misunderstanding. No cruelty was caused by the accused
persons. Gold ornaments are with her. They decided to live
together.

8. PW2 is mother of PW1 who stated that she has not seen
anyone causing physical and mental cruelty to PW1.

9. In the light of evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2, all
other remaining witnesses were given up by the learned
App.

10. Upon going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, there
is no materials to connect the accused persons with this
case. Ext.P1 is not a substantive piece of evidence unless it
is corroborated by the oral testimonies of witnesses. From
the available evidence, no materials available to fasten
criminal liability against the accused persons. So I find that
accused not guilty of the offences alleged against them.
Point No.1 and 2 are found against the prosecution.”

The case against the petitioner herein has subsequently been re-numbered

as C.C.No. 31/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,

Koyilandi.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

disputes between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent’s family arose on a

misunderstanding. Now all the disputes are settled and the petitioner is

happily living at her matrimonial home with her children. The 2 nd

resondent is working abroad and is unable to present this Crl.M.C. defore

this Court.

3. Heard Sri. Shyam Padman, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Sri. Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st

respondent State of Kerala.

Crl.M.C.No.7718/2019 4

4. On a perusal of Anx. A2 judgment, it can be seen that the trial

court has conclusively held that there is no evidence to connect the said

co-accused persons with the impugned charges and acquitted the said

co-accused persons. From a mere reading of Anx.A2 judgment it is crystal

clear that the substratum of the prosecution has been shattered by the

acquittal of the said co-accused persons. No meaningful purpose will be

subserved by prolonging the agony of the impugned criminal proceedings

now pending against the petitioner. Any further continuance of the

impugned criminal proceedings would amount to mere wastage of precious

resources of the State including that of the judiciary. This Court in the

cases as in SectionMoosa v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2006 (1) KLT

552, SectionAshraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala reported in 2011(2) KHC 8123,

and SectionAbbas v. State of Kerala 2013 (2) KLT 976, has held that if the

substratum of the prosecution is demolished by the acquittal of the co-

accused, this Court could exercise the powers under Sec.482 of the SectionCr.P.C.

to consider the prayer of quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings

against the other accused. In this view of the matter, it is ordered in the

interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A3 final report/charge sheet filed

in the impugned Crime No. 180/2013 of Elathur Police Station, which has

led to the pendency of C.C.No. 31/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Koyilandi and all further proceedings arising therefrom

pending against the petitioners herein stand quashed.
Crl.M.C.No.7718/2019 5

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the

investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned.

The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the

investigating officer concerned for information.

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Miscellaneous

Case stands finally disposed of.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd
Crl.M.C.No.7718/2019 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF
SEENATH (CW1) DATED 05/01/2018 IN C
NO.843/2018 BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOYILANDY

ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11/01?

2018 IN C NO.843/2013 PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KOYILANDY

ANNEXURE-A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.180/2013 REGISTERED IN ELANTHUR
POLICE STATION, SPLIT UP AND REFILED AS
CC NO.31/2018 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOYILANDY

True Copy

P.S. To Judge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation