Akhil Kalarickal vs State Of Kerala,Rep.By Public ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 22938 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
           TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                                  CRL.MC NO. 68 OF 2020
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 622/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                                   ,PALA, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:


      1      AKHIL KALARICKAL
             AGED 22 YEARS
             S/O SUBASH,KALARIKAL HOUSE,POOVARANI P O, POOVARANI VILLEGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTATYAM, PIN 686 577

      2      SUBASH KALARIKAL
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KALARIKAL HOUSE, POOVARANI P. O, MEENACHIL,
             KOTTATYAM, PIN 686 577

             BY ADV P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI



RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINANT:


      1      STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA,ERNAKULAM

      2      SARASAMMA, W/O BHASKARAN, KADAMBUKATTU HOUSE,
             POOVARANI P. O, MEENACHIL THALUK ,KOTTATYAM

OTHER PRESENT:


             PP - SRI. M.C.ASHI




      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No. 68 OF 2020              2



                                 ORDER

Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC

No.622/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court-I, Pala, where it is submitted, they face allegations under

Sections 447, 509, 294(b), 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC.

2. The alleged incident had happened on 5.3.2015 at the

premises of the CW1, the 2nd respondent who had initiated the

proceedings by giving the First Information Statement; on

conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid against

the 2nd petitioner. As the 1st petitioner was a juvenile in conflict

with the law on the date of commission of the crime, a separate

charge sheet has been laid against him before the Juvenile

Justice Board. But it seems that the petitioners have moved this

Court without considering this aspect. Whatever it may be, the

learned counsel submits that no evidence is available against the

petitioners to proceed against them for the alleged offences, that

even after more than 7 years, the trial has not been progressed.

According to the learned counsel, the wittiness in the charge

sheet is only the defacto complainant, her husband, and son in

law, and no independent witnesses have been cited. Moreover,

there is civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, the

prosecution will not be able to succeed in their attempt. But

these are matters to be agitated before the trial court. It is the

settled proposition of law that this court while considering an

application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C cannot embark upon

an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

raised against a culprit and a parallel trial cannot be conducted.

There is no proposition having universal application that

conviction without independent testimony is bad. If the

testimony of the informant and members of her family are

genuine and trustworthy, depending up on the facts and quality

of evidence, it can be acted upon. There are situations where

conviction can be made based on the solitary evidence of the

defacto complainant. Everything depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. Even though corroboration is the

rule, for the reason that independent witness are not cited,

proceedings cannot be quashed on the threshold invoking

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Perhaps, these may

be valid grounds available to the petitioners for moving an

application under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C before the trial

court. Leaving open such a right, the Crl. M.C is liable to be

dismissed.

3. When the matter was taken for hearing again, at the

instance of the learned counsel, the learned counsel submits that

the 1st petitioner is a Hotel Management Graduate, he is waiting

for a chance to go abroad because of the pendency of the case he

is unable to go abroad and take up employment. This is a case of

the year 2015 and being a five plus year old case, the learned

Magistrate is required to give top priority for disposing the case.

4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of

the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL JUDGE RMV/23/11/2021

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 68/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SHCOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN PROOF OF AGE

Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 465/2015 OF PALAI POLICE STATION

Annexure A3 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 465/2015 OF PALAI POLCIE STATION DATED 31.03.2015..

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM CARITAS HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.