IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 777 of 2010()
1. SAJEER , AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.777 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated 22nd March 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner is the second accused in
C.C.44/2010 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery taken
cognizance for the offence under Sections
411 of 379 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash the cognizance taken as against
the petitioner contending that apart from
the confession statement of the first
accused, there is no material whatsoever to
connect petitioner with the offences
alleged.
2. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and learned Public
Crmc 777/10
2
Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance for the offences under Annexure-A1
final report. Annexure-A1 final report shows
that prosecution case is that motor cycle
belonging to the de facto complainant, was
parked on the side of market road on 19/12/2000
at about 7.30 p.m and first accused committed
theft of the motor cycle and sold it to third
accused who purchased it with the knowledge
that it is the stolen vehicle. It is also
alleged that petitioner was also along with the
first accused, at the time of committing the
theft. As petitioner and third accused were
absconding, first accused was tried by the
learned Magistrate in C.C.129/2002, after
splitting the case against accused 2 and 3 as
C.C.334/2008. By Annexure-3 judgment first
Crmc 777/10
3
accused was acquitted on 27/9/2002. Case of the
petitioner is that apart from alleged
confession statement of first accused, there is
no material to connect petitioner with the
theft or sale of stolen article to third
accused and therefore, even if petitioner is
to be tried there is no likelihood of a
successful prosecution.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that apart from the confession statement of
first accused, there is no material as against
the petitioner.
5. When prosecution case is that first
accused along with second accused committed
theft of motor cycle belonging to the de facto
complainant and first accused has already been
acquitted by Annexure-3 judgment, after
recording the evidence, as and when there was
Crmc 777/10
4
no recovery from the petitioner and there is no
other material to point out that he committed
the offences and the only supporting material
is the confession statement of the co-accused,
which cannot be used against the petitioner,
continuation of the proceedings will not serve
any purpose. In such circumstances, it is not
in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.44/2010 now
pending against petitioner before Judicial
First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery on
Annexure-2 final report is quashed as against
the petitioner.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.