Shemeer vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2146 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                    CRL.MC NO. 2499 OF 2018
 AGAINST CC 4320/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                        -I, CHENGANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

    1    SHEMEER
         AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, THAYYIL PUTHEN
         VEEDU,CHERIYANADU, P/W-VIII, CHERUVALLUR MURI,
         CHERIYANADU.

    2    NISSA
         AGED 43 YEARS
         W/O. DILEEP, THAYYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,CHERIYANADU,
         P/W-VIII, CHERUVALLUR MURI, CHERIYANADU.

         BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
         SMT.K.VIDYA
         SRI.VINODE V. LUKA


RESPONDENT/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VENMONY
         POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,THROUGH THE
         PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,
         KOCHI, PIN - 682 031.

         SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.2499/2018

                                -:2:-




                             O R D E R

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure A1 FIR,

Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC

No.4320/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-1, Chengannur against the petitioners on the ground of

acquittal of the remaining accused.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.4 and 6. A crime

was registered against the petitioners as well as the accused

Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as Crime No.121/2007 of Venmony Police

Station for the offence under Ss.342 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the de facto

complainant was subjected to cruelty, both physically and

mentally, by the petitioners and the remaining accused,

demanding more dowry and thereby committed the offence. After

completing the investigation, final report was filed. The accused

Nos.2, 3 and 5 alone faced trial. The learned Magistrate after full

fledged trial found that the prosecution failed to prove the Crl.M.C.No.2499/2018

offence against the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 and accordingly they

were acquitted. Annexure A3 is the judgment. Since the

petitioners and accused No.1 did not appear, the case as against

them was split up and refiled as CC No.4320/2015. Thereafter,

the accused No.1 preferred Crl.M.C.No.2163/2019 before this

court to quash the proceedings against him on the ground of

acquittal of the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5. This Court as per

Annexure A4 order quashed all further proceedings against the

accused No.1. According to the petitioners, in view of the

acquittal of the remaining accused, substratum of the

prosecution case is dislodged. It is in these circumstances, they

filed this Crl.M.C. invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard Sri.C.V.Manuvilsan, the learned counsel

for the petitioners and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. A perusal of Annexure A3 judgment would show that

the learned Magistrate has conclusively held that there is no

evidence to connect the co-accused persons with the impugned

charges and they were acquitted. A reading of Annexure A3

judgment would show that the substratum of the prosecution Crl.M.C.No.2499/2018

case is dislodged. The Apex Court in Sahadevan and Another

v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403] has held that if the

entire prosecution case has been found to be unreliable and the

prosecution as a whole has not been able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt, then benefit should accrue to all the

accused persons and not merely to the accused who faced trial.

A Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police

(2006 (1) KLT 552) in paragraph 50 has held that in a case where

the substratum of the case is lost by the acquittal of the co-

accused, the power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C could be invoked. This is a

case where the entire prosecution was found to be unreliable and

the prosecution as a whole has not been able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. That apart, as per Annexure A4

judgment, this Court has already acquitted accused No.1 who is

the husband of the de facto complainant on the ground of

acquittal of the co-accused. Moreover, it is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant

is no more. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding with

the trial.

6. For all these reasons, further proceedings as against Crl.M.C.No.2499/2018

the petitioners in Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and

all further proceedings in CC No.4320/2015 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Chengannur stands

quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp Crl.M.C.No.2499/2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2499/2018

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.121/2007 DATED 16.08.2007 OF THE VENMONY POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.121/2007 DATED 30.11.2007 OF THE VENMONY POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

ANNEXURE A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-

I,CHENGANNUR DATED 09.09.2015 IN C.C NO.33 OF 2008.

ANNEXURE A4 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.4.2019 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2163/2019