Kerala High Court
Ullas vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 8440 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 8440 OF 2025
CRIME NO.105/2011 OF VARANDARAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
IN CC NO.9002 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS , IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER:
ULLAS
AGED 74 YEARS
,S/O KARTHIKEYAN, VARISERRY HOUSE, PALLIPURAM
VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683515
BY ADVS. SRI.M.VIVEK
SHRI.M.R.MADHU
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 8440 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76287
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime
No.105/20211 registered by the Varandarappilly Police
Station, Thrissur, against two accused persons for allegedly
committing the offence punishable under Section 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and now pending
as C.C.No.9002/2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda (for short 'the Trial
Court').
2. The prosecution allegation against the
petitioner and the 2nd accused in the crime is that, they were
conducting a chitty business in the name and style
'Ambady Chits'. Even though the accused persons had
received subscriptions from the subscribers, they failed to
pay the prize amount. Thus, the accused persons have
committed the above offences.
2025:KER:76287
3. The Investigating Officer, after investigation,
filed the final report alleging that the accused persons have
committed the above offences.
4. The petitioner states that he had appeared
before the Trial Court. However, due to the circumstances
beyond his control, he could not participate in the full trial.
Consequently, his bail bond was cancelled and a Non
Bailable Warrant was issued against him. Nonetheless, the
2nd accused participated in the trial. By Annexure A2
judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the 2 nd accused.
Annexure A2 judgment substantiates that the Trial Court
has honourably acquitted the 2nd accused on the finding that
the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the 2nd accused had committed the alleged
offences. In view of the specific finding that there is no
material to substantiate that the accused persons have
committed the alleged offences, the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of the findings in Annexure A2 judgment. Now
the case against the petitioner has been split up and
2025:KER:76287
re-numbered as C.C.No.9002/2012. The continuation of the
proceedings would be a sheer waste of judicial time.
Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be allowed.
5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Crime No.105/2011 was registered against
the petitioner and the 2nd accused for allegedly committing
the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation
filed Annexure A1 final report stating that the accused have
committed the above offences.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not
participate in the trial. It is his case that after the
examination of PW5 on 26.10.2018, as the other witnesses
did not turn up, the case was being unnecessarily adjourned
from time to time. Due to the petitioner's old age and his
physical ailments, he could not travel on all posting dates
from Cherai to Irinjalakuda to attend the hearing. Even
though the petitioner had informed his lawyer to bring the
2025:KER:76287
above fact to notice of the Trial Court, the same was not
done. Ultimately, his bail bond was cancelled and a Non
Bailable Warrant was issued against him. Nevertheless, in
the meantime, the 2nd accused participated in the trial and
by Annexure A2 judgment, the Trial court acquitted the 2 nd
accused.
8. In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006
(1) KLT 552], a Full Bench of this Court has held that in a
case where the very substratum of the case is lost by the
acquittal of the co-accused, the inherent power of this Court
can be exercised to quash the proceedings against the other
accused persons. The same view has been repeatedly
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in a
catena of precedents.
9. Having gone through the materials on
record, particularly Annexure A2 judgment, it is seen that
the Trial Court had acquitted the 2nd accused on the ground
that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused persons had induced the victims to
2025:KER:76287
deposit money in the Kuri company, in whose name the
money was deposited, and there was no material to prove
that the accused persons had received the money from the
subscribers. Relying on the principles laid down by this
Court in Sujith Kumar P v. State of Kerala and Another
[2021 KHC 372], the Trial Court concluded that there was
no evidence to prove the office bearers of the Kuri company
had an intention to cheat the subscribers at the time they
had received the subscription. Accordingly, the Trial Court
found that the 2nd accused had not committed the offence
alleged against him, and acquitted him.
10. On an anxious consideration of the facts and
the materials on record, particularly the findings of the Trial
Court in Annexure A2 judgment, wherein it is specifically
found that there is no material to prove that the office
bearers of the Kuri company, which includes the petitioner,
had cheated their subscribers, I am of the definite view that
the said findings are squarely applicable to the case of the
petitioner also. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal
2025:KER:76287
of trial, it will not yield a different result than Annexure A2
judgment. Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that the
findings of acquittal in Annexure A2 judgment in favour of
the 2nd accused enures the benefit of the petitioner also. It
would only be a sheer waste of judicial time to make the
conduct the trial all over again. Thus, in exercise of the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, I am inclined to
allow the Crl.M.C.
In the afore said circumstances, I allow this Crl.M.C,
by quashing Annexure A1 final report in Crime No.105/2011
of the Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.9002/2012 on the files of the
Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, as
against the petitioner.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:76287
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.105 OF 2011 OF VARANTHARAPILLY POLICE
STATION; WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.
9002 OF 2012 ON THE FILES JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE -A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY JFCM,
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 17-10-2023 IN C.C.NO.
582 OF 2012
