Kerala High Court
Shaji Khan vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:79571
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
LP NO.101 OF 1993 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJI KHAN
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM,
THEVARATHU VEEDU,VEILOOR,MURUKUMPUZHA POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 VIJAYAN,
S/O VELU MESIRI,RAGAM HOUSE,
KOTTARAKKARI,PILLAVEETTUMURI, VEILOOR VILLAGE,
MURUKKUMPUZHA POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695302.
SRI.RENJITH T.R., SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79571
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2119 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed to quash the
proceedings in L.P. No.101/1993 in C.C.No.811/1992 on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, which is
now pending as C.C.No.561/2019 before the same Court. A
private complaint was filed against the petitioner and 3 others
and the petitioner was not able to appear before the trial court
when the trial was started. Hence his case was splited and the
case against the other accused were proceeded. As per
Annexure-A2 judgment, the trial court acquitted the other
accused. In the light of the same, prosecution against the
petitioner is unsustainable is the contention. Hence this criminal
miscellaneous case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice was issued to the
2nd respondent, there is no appearance.
2024:KER:79571
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
3. This Court perused Annexure-A2 judgment by which
the other accused were acquitted. It will be better to extract
paragraphs 7 and 8 of Annexure-A2 judgment:
"7. P.W.1, the complainant did not see the alleged
occurrence. P.W.2 totally denied that he had seen the
occurrence took place. P.Ws.3 and 4 also admitted
before court that they had seen A1 to A4 in the property
on the date of occurrence kept themselves with some
pieces of pipe fittings in their hands. Further P.W.3 and 4
admitted that they could not correctly see the exact
occurrence took place. When they came over there, the
actual occurrence was over. They could see only the
destroyed cultivation and broken parts of water-pipe
kept by the accused. It is come out in evidence that in
connection with the occurrence, the Police had already
registered a crime and U.N. report was filed before
court. P.W.5 Head Constable was examined to prove
Ext.P1 F.I.Statement given by the complainant, Ext.P4
F.I.R. registered on the basis of Ext.P1 Statement and
Ext.P2 Scene mahazar prepared in the crime.
8. On a detailed consideration of the materials before
me, I hold that there is no cogent evidence to believe
that the accused had committed the above said offences.
Mere presence of a person at the place of occurrence
currence would not reveal that he had committed the
offence. None of the witnesses has deposed before court
2024:KER:79571
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
that he had seen the actual occurrence took place. It is
the basic principle of criminal law that the burden is on
the complainant to prove the case against the accused
beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. But in this case
there is no material before me to connect A1 to A3 with
the alleged occurrence. Therefore these two points are
decided against the complainant. "
4. In the light of the above, I am of the considered
opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the
petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court and also a judicial
waste of time. Moreover, the complainant is not appearing
before this Court after getting notice. Considering the facts and
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation
of proceedings against the petitioner is not necessary.
Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.561/2019
(L.P. No.101/1993 in C.C.No.811/1992) on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, are quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2024:KER:79571
CRL.MC NO. 2119 OF 2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
1.12.1990 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SECOND CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT,ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23/11/1992 IN C.C.NO.1/1991 OF JUDICIAL
SECOND CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A-3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTED
04/06/2019 IN M.C.NO.45/2019 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
ATTINGAL
