IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4370 of 2010()
1. VINEETH @ ANIYAN KUTTAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4370 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 24th November, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was sixth accused in S.C.966/2003 on the file of Additional
Sessions Court, Mavelikara. As petitioner and
sixth accused were absconding, case against
them was split up and re-filed and the
remaining six accused were tried. By
Annexure-A3 judgment those accused were
acquitted. Subsequently, when presence of the
petitioner was procured, case against him was
taken on file as S.C.875/2010. Petition is
filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings pending
against him contending that in view of the
order of acquittal against the co-accused and
the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment that
prosecution case is shrouded in suspicion
Crmc 4370/10 2
even if, petitioner is to be tried, there is no
likelihood of a successful prosecution and
therefore, the case is to be quashed.
2. On hearing the learned counsel
and the learned Public Prosecutor, I cannot
agree with the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that based on the findings in
Annexure-A3 that the prosecution case is
shrouded in suspicion or for the reason that
the co-accused were acquitted, the case could
be quashed, in view of the Full Bench of this
Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006
(1) KLT 552). Though learned counsel argued
that PW8 when examined in S.C.966/2003,
against whom an overt act was allegedly
committed by the petitioner as per Annexure-A2
final report, did not give any such evidence
and therefore, there is no necessity for
directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal
Crmc 4370/10 3
of a trial, when petitioner was not appearing
in that case there was no necessity for Public
Prosecutor to elicit the evidence against the
petitioner, in that case. Hence failure to
mention the overt act on the part of the
petitioner by that witness when examined in
S.C.966/2003, is not a ground to quash the
proceedings. Petitioner is entitled to raise
all the contentions raised herein before the
learned Sessions Judge and seek an order of
discharge. Petitioner is also at liberty to
bring it to the notice of the learned Sessions
Judge that the co-accused were acquitted and
no evidence was tendered in support of the
prosecution case in S.C.966/2003.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.