Jalaludeen vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 28710 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 28710 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 October, 2024

Kerala High Court

Jalaludeen vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2024

Author: P. V. Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                        2024:KER:73279
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946

                       CRL.MC NO. 1414 OF 2018

   CRIME NO.144/2011 OF Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasargod

            AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.125 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL

               MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            JALALUDEEN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI,
            PATTIYIL HOUSE, KALLANCHIRA, BALAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
            DISTRICT.


            BY ADV SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

    1       STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

   * 2      FATHIMA A., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. R. P. UMMAR HAJI LATE,
 DELETED    MARYANDKATH HOUSE, CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KOOVERI VILLAGE,
            TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.

            [* - 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
            03.10.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2024]

            SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R, PP


     THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.1414/2018
                                    2

                                                        2024:KER:73279


                   P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                -------------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C.No.1414 of 2018
                -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024

                                ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.125 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg arising from Crime No.144/2011

of Vellarikkund Police Station.

2. The above case is charge sheeted against the

petitioner and four others alleging offences punishable under

Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The co-accused faced trial and they were acquitted

as per Annexure-AIII judgment. According to the petitioner, in the

light of the same, the continuation of the prosecution against the

petitioner is an abuse of process of Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

2024:KER:73279

5. This Court perused Annexure-AIII judgment.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not a relative of the 1 st accused. He is a

friend of the 1st accused who proposed the marriage with the defacto

complainant. The other accused faced trial and the trial court

acquitted the accused. It will be better to extract the relevant portion

of Annexure-AIII judgment.

17. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that prosecution could not prove the forgery and in Muslim marriage there is no need of any document or marriage declaration form to conduct a marriage and that prosecution could not prove the essential elements of forgery. As contemplated u/s. 463 of IPC making of a false document or part of it and such making is with the intention as specified in the Section has to be established by the prosecution. It is true that for solemnization of the Muslim marriage no such declaration form is necessary. But the question in this case is not whether the declaration form is necessary or not for the solemnization of a Muslim marriage. The question in this case is that whether accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 who are facing trial now had committed forgery in furtherance of their common intention. As I stated Ext.P4 is the document which prosecution alleges to have committed forgery. As contented by the learned counsel, no direct evidence is produced by the prosecution. No witness has been cited or examined by the prosecution to say that they had seen

2024:KER:73279

accused No.1 affixing the seal of Kalanad Juma At Mosque and the signature of Kathib and Secretary of the said Mosque in Ext.P1 marriage declaration form. No direct evidence is available in this regard. So the only evidence is available for proving the prosecution evidence is circumstantial evidence. It is the settled law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the one and only conclusion that could be derived at is the guilt of the accused. In this case, as per the prosecution charge, the accused has affixed the seal of Kalanad Juma At Mosque and the signature of Secretary and Kathib of the said Mosque in the marriage declaration form of Chapparappadavu Juma At Committee. But where as coming to the examination in chief of PW8, the Investigation Officer, what he has stated is that he has seized the marriage declaration form and the seal and signature therein belongs to Kalanad Juma At Mosque. He conducted investigation and found that no such marriage declaration form was issued from the said Mosque. So even the Investigation Officer is not sure from which mosque the marriage declaration is issued i.e. from Kalanad Juma At Mosque or Chapparappadavu Juma At Mosque.

18. Another important point to be considered in this case is that prosecution has not cited the necessity of submitting this marriage declaration form by the accused. As I stated, on perusal of Ext.P4 it can be seen that the marriage declaration form is issued from Chapparappadavu Juma At committee. PW4, Manager of Chapparappadavu Juma At Committee was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has not stated that there is a practice in the said Juma At committee to

2024:KER:73279

issue such declaration form while conducting marriage. There is no evidence to show that such marriage declaration form has to be produced by the accused at Chapprappadavu Juma At for solemnization of the marriage within the said Juma At committee. Moreover, on perusal of Ext.P4 it can be seen that it is the marriage declaration form issued from Chapparappadavu Juma At committee for solemnization of marriage of the bridegroom of the said Juma At. So the seal and signature which has to be affixed in the said marriage declaration form is the seal of Chapparappadavu Juma At committee and the signature of Secretary and Kathib of Chapparappadavu Juma At committee when a bride groom in the said Juma At Committee is getting married. Hence the entire prosecution case is doubtful. Hence I am of the view that prosecution could not prove accused Nos. 1,3,4,5 had committed forgery punishable u/s. 465 of IPC and had committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and used any forged document as genuine so as to make the accused punishable u/s. 468 and 471 of IPC. Hence these points answered against the prosecution.'

6. In the light of the above finding, I am of the

considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against

the petitioner will be an abuse of process of Court and a judicial waste

of time. The prosecution against the petitioner can be quashed.

2024:KER:73279

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All

further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.125/2018 on the

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg are

quashed.

Sd/-

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/03.10.2024

2024:KER:73279