IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018
SC 41/2018 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 351/2005 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN,
KANHIRASSERI POKKATTU HOUSE, THEKKUMPARAMB,
PALLIKKAL AMSOM DESOM.
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
*2 SIVADASAN, S/O KUMARAN,
AGED 45, KUZHIKATTIL MALAYIL,
MALAPPURAM – 676 312.
*3 KUMARAN, F/O SIVADASAN
MALAPPURAM – 676 312.
* ADDITIONAL R2 R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
10.7.2018 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7026/18 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2397/18
SRI.M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
2. The petitioner herein had married Shylaja on 7.2.1999 and
they started living together in their matrimonial home. On 5.6.2005,
Shylaja committed suicide. Alleging that the petitioner herein and his
parents had subjected the lady to cruelty and harassment demanding
dowry, a crime was registered at the instance of the additional 2 nd
respondent, the brother of the deceased. The case was investigated
and the final report was laid before the committal court. The case was
made over to the Sessions Court, Manjeri and was numbered as S.C.
No.47/2013. The accused were charged for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The petitioner was not available for trial and the case
against him was split up. The case was proceeded against the parents
of the petitioner. By Annexure-II judgment dated 27.4.2015, the
accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges.
4. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the jurisdictional
court and the case against him is now pending as S.C. No.41 of 2018.
He has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 3
ground that the continuance of the same would only be a sheer waste
of time and an abuse of process.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the father of the deceased as well as her sisters-in-law were
examined before court to prove the prosecution case. However, all of
them entered the box and testified against the prosecution version. All
of them stated that they are unaware of the reasons which persuaded
Shylaja to take her own life. According to the learned counsel, in view
of the above scenario, no purpose would be served in directing the
petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial.
6. This Court issued notice to the additional respondents 2 and
3, who are the brother and father respectively of the deceased. It is
now reported that the additional 3 rd respondent is no more. Though
notice was served on the 2nd respondent, he has not responded.
7. Heard the learned Public prosecutor and I have gone
through the judgment passed by the court below and also the records
8. It appears that the father of the deceased as well as her
near relatives were examined before the court. In para 10 of the
judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the witnesses
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 4
have vehemently taken a stand against the prosecution. There was no
material to connect the accused with the crime. The court was
persuaded to invoke the provision under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C.
and the accused were acquitted of all charges.
9. As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v.
Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning
of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a
co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum
of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.
10. I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served
by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be
a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time
which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of
conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be
adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be
justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that any purpose would
be served in directing the petitioner to undergo trial.
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 5
11. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of
the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its
extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All
proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.41 of 2018 on the file of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 6
ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.
351/2005 DATED 05.06.2005 OF KONDOTTY
ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.04.2015 IN S.C.NO. 47/2013 ON THE FILES
OF COURT OF ADDL.DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
– I, MANJERI.