Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar.M vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 1413 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
   FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
                      CRL.MC NO. 9650 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 310/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                       FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER:

          PRADEEP @ PRADEEP KUMAR.M
          AGED 26 YEARS
          SON OF PRABHAKARAN,
          KOLAVAYAL, CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.,
          PIN - 671 316.

          BY ADVS.
                A.ARUNKUMAR
                HEERAKRISHNA T.H.
                SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

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

OTHER PRESENT:

          ADV C S HRITHWIK-SR PP


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC No. 9650 of 2022                 2


                        ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A, J
                    ---------------------------------------
                        Crl.MC No. 9650 of 2022
                     --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023

                                  ORDER

The petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.141/2016 of Hosdurg

Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner

and 8 others alleging offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

452, 506(ii), 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case in that, at 21.30 hours on 14/02/2016, the

accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed

the offence of rioting, armed with deadly weapons, by trespassing into the

residential house of the defacto complainant, demolished the window

panes destroyed utensils, water pipes and thereby causing a lose to the

tune of Rs.5459/-. It is also alleged that, the accused threaten the defacto

complainant and thereby committed the offences.

3. Annexure A1 is the FIR and Annexure A2 is the Final Report

submitted.

4. Earlier, cognizance was taken on the same, by the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg and the trial was conducted as C.C No.

1864/2016. In the said trial, accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 participated.

Annexure A3 is the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate by which

all the accused persons who faced the trial were found not guilty and

acquitted. The case against the petitioner and the 4 th accused was split up

and the same is now pending as C.C. No.310/2022 on the files of Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as against the petitioner herein.

This Crl.MC is filed for quash all further proceedings in the said Calendar

Case.

5. Heard Sri. A.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri. C.S Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State.

6. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that consequent to the order of acquittal passed by the

learned Magistrate in Annexure A3, the substratum of the prosecution case

is lost and therefore no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner. The reliance was

also placed on Moosa Vs Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 336].

7. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

contention by highlighting that, the other accused persons were acquitted

after a full-fledged trial and since the petitioner did not face the trial, the

involvement of the petitioner cannot be decided, on the basis of findings

entered in Annexure A3 judgment.

8. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions

raised by either side. It is discernible from Annexure A3 that the defacto

complainant was examined as PW1. According to him, on the date of

occurrence a group of persons rushed to his house with deadly weapons,

committed mischief and threatened him. However, he could not identify

any of the assailants. It is also stated that he did not give any complaint to

the police referring to the names of any of the accused. He also did not

identify any of the persons who were present in the court as accused

persons. PW2 and PW3 were the other occurrence witness and both of

them had turn hostile to the prosecution.

9. In such circumstances, the prosecution had given up all the

other witnesses and after considering all these aspects, the learned

Magistrate came to a definite conclusion that the prosecution could not

adduce any evidence substantiating the case advanced by them.

10. On going through the observations and findings in

Annexure A3 judgment and the nature of the evidence that was adduced by

the prosecution, it can be safely concluded that the same will have the

impact of destroying the substratum of the case. In such circumstances, the

continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is a futile exercise as

the chances of conviction are every weak. Therefore I am of the view this

is a fit case the principles laid down by this Court in Moosa's case (supra)

can be applied.

In the result this Crl.MC is allowed the Annexure A2 Final Report

submitted in Crime No 141/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further

proceedings pursuant to the same as against the petitioner including the

proceedings in C.C No.310/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9650/2022

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.141 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.

Annexure AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 141 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.

Annexure AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 05-08-2019 IN C.C.NO.1864 OF 2016 OF JFCM-I, HOSDURG.