Sirilmon Sabu vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 5304 Ker

Crl.M.C.No.2860/2023                      1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
     TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                        CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 406/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                  OF FIRST CLASS -II, MANANTHAVADY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

             SIRILMON SABU,
             AGED 36 YEARS,
             S/O.BABU, TAIKKATHU HOUSE, RAJAPURAM POST,
             KASARGOD, PIN - 671 532.

             BY ADVS.
             S.RAJEEV
             V.VINAY
             M.S.ANEER
             SARATH K.P.
             PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
             ANILKUMAR C.R.



RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.


       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    25.04.2023,      THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.2860/2023                    2

                                 ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.675 of 2012 of

Mananthavady Police Station, which was registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 353, 294(b) read with 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

On getting information that the passengers and the staff in

the stage carriage bearing Reg.No.RRK 807 were engaged into

scuffle, as the trip of the bus was stopped at Mananthavady, de

facto complainant, Sub Inspector of Police, Manangavady and

party reached at Mananthavady bus stand at 15.20 hours on

01.08.2012. After discussion with the ATO, Kannur, the de facto

complainant directed the staff of the above bus to continue the

trip. At this juncture, the 2 nd accused abused the de facto

complainant in filthy language and when CW1 and CW3 tried to

intervene, the 1st accused caught hold on the uniform of CW2 and

CW3 and pulled them and thereby deterred them from the

discharge of their official duties. Crime was registered in such

circumstances. After completing the investigation, Annexure-II

final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady and cognizance was taken

thereon as C.C.No.837 of 2012. In the trial followed the 2 nd

accused alone participated and the case against the petitioner has

been split up. Trial against the 2 nd accused culminated in

Annexure-III judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, by

which he was found not guilty and accordingly acquitted. Case

against the petitioner has been now been re-numbered as

C.C.No.406 of 2019 and is pending before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Mananthavady. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the

petitioner to quash the same.

3. Heard Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Smt.Maya M.N, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, consequent to the

order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate as regards

the 2nd accused, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost and

hence no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the

prosecution against the petitioner herein. Reliance was placed by

the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment rendered by

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

[2006 (1) KLT 552].

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

would oppose the aforesaid application by pointing out that the

role of the petitioner in commission of the crime can be

considered only after the trial. Merely because of the reason that

the other accused was acquitted he cannot seek for an order to

quash the proceedings. I have gone through the records

including Annexure-III judgment rendered by the learned

Magistrate. It is discernible therefrom that, in paragraph No.16

of the said judgment a detailed discussion has been made as to

the merits of the prosecution case. It is evident that CW1 to CW3

were examined as PW1 to PW3 and they deposed in tune with the

prosecution case. However, learned Magistrate discarded the

evidence only on the ground that no documents were produced to

show that they were on duty on the date of the incident and

therefore, a categorical finding was arrived at to the effect that no

materials are adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the

allegation for making out the offence under Section 353 IPC. It

was also observed by the learned Magistrate that the trip sheet of

the KSRTC was also not been produced. However, it was the

specific case of the prosecution that the scuffle took place

between the passengers and staff of the bus, none of the

passengers came before PW1 and made any complaint. PW4,

independent witness examined by the prosecution as well. After

considering all the relevant aspects, a categorical finding has

been entered into by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the

prosecution miserably failed to establish the case. When

considering the entire materials placed on record, I am of the

view that, the observations made by the learned Magistrate in

Annexure-III judgment will have the impact of substratum of the

prosecution case is lost.

5. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be

served by allowing the continuation of the prosecution as against

the petitioner herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

I find that this is a fit case in which the principles laid down by

this Court in Moosa's case can be applied.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-AII final

report submitted by the Police in Crime No.675 of 2012 of

Mannanchery Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant

thereto, including the proceedings in C.C.No.406 of 2019 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II,

Mananthavady is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/26.4.23

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2860/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 675/2012 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION

Annexure II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 675/2012 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION

Annexure III THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 837/2012 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II