SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prasannakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

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

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

PRASANNAKUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN,
KANHIRASSERI POKKATTU HOUSE, THEKKUMPARAMB,
PALLIKKAL AMSOM DESOM.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT STATE:
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,
ARIYALLUR AMSOM,
KODAKKADU DESOM,
MALAPPURAM – 676 312.

*3 KUMARAN, F/O SIVADASAN
KUZHIKATTIL MALAYIL,
ARIYALLUR AMSOM,
KODAKKADU DESOM,
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

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

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

made available.

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

proceedings.

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.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 2397 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.
351/2005 DATED 05.06.2005 OF KONDOTTY
POLICE STATION.

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.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

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