Full Judgment
Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 24 OF 2022 CRIME NO.613/2018 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 651/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED: A. NIDHEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/o Sasidharan,Kuniyara House, Double Post desom, Koolimuttam Village, Pin 680 691. BY ADV T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Pin 682031.
2. Jinu Jose,Aged 38 years,
2 S/o.Jose, Mattappillil House, Muriyad, Pin 680 683. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.613 of 2018 of Aloor Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused in the said case were under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 15.05.2018 the 1 st accused had deceitfully obtained an Innova car bearing registration No.KL-45-Q-5116 from PW3 and later pledged the
said vehicle to the 2nd accused for Rs.1,65,000/-. The accused Nos.1 and 2 later forged a registration certificate with the assistance of the 3rd accused, who is the petitioner herein and using the said forged registration certificate, again pledged the said Innova to the 4th accused. Later, the 4th accused sold the vehicle to PW4 for a total sum of Rs.3,80,000/-(Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand only).
3. Annexure-A3 is the final report submitted in this case. Initially, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy had taken cognizance thereof as C.C.No.548 of 2019 and trial Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 3
was conducted. In the aforesaid trial, 2 nd and 4th accused have participated and it culminated in Annexure-A4 judgment. As per the same, both the said accused persons were acquitted. Case against the 1st accused and petitioner/3rd accused was split up and the same is now pending as C.C.No.651 of 2021. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
4. Heard Sri.T.K.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Prasanth M.P., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the proceedings is based on Annexure-A4 judgment passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Chalakudy. It is pointed out that, by virtue of the observations and findings entered by the learned Magistrate while acquitting the 2nd and 4th accused in the crime, the substratum of the case itself is lost and hence there is no meaning in conducting the prosecution as against the petitioner herein. Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police
Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 4 [2006(1) KLT 552].
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
would oppose the aforesaid prayer. It is pointed out that, the question of involvement of the petitioner is a matter which can be adjudicated during the course of trial alone. The mere fact that some of the accused persons were acquitted, by itself may not necessarily result in an order quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. I have gone through the contents of Annexure-A3 final
report and also the findings in Annexure A4 judgment. It is discernible from the records that the specific role assigned to the petitioner is that he helped the 2nd accused, in creating a fake registration certificate for the vehicle in question. The learned Magistrate had dealt with the question regarding the offence of forgery in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 in Annexure A4 judgment. From perusal of the findings therein, it is evident that specific observations has been made by the learned Magistrate to the effect that, prosecution failed to adduce any scientific evidence by subjecting the documents alleged to have been falsely created to forensic examination. It was also examined that no steps have
Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 5 been taken by the prosecution to compare the seal and signature of the registration authorities with the seal and signature contained in the R.C Book. It is to be noted in this regard that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted the 2nd accused in forging the signature of the Motor Vehicle
authorities for creating a false registration certificate. The learned Magistrate has already found that the prosecution could not adduce any evidence to establish the forgery in the manner claimed by the prosecution. The order of acquittal passed against the other accused was mainly on this ground. Considering the nature of allegations that have been raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that, the finding of the learned Magistrate on the above question, is very fatal to the prosecution as to the complicity of the petitioner also. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the finding of the learned Magistrate would have an impact of destroying the substratum of the prosecution case itself. Hence, I am of the opinion that, this is a fit case in which the principles laid down by this Court in Moosa’s case (supra) to be applied.
8. Thus, after perusal of the entire materials, I am Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 6 convinced that this is fit a case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further
proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3 final report submitted in Crime No.613 of 2018 of Aloor Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.651 of 2021, pending before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy, as against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/8.6.22 Crl.M.C.No.24/2022 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 24/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT DATED 01.11.2018 IN CRIME NO.613/2018. Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.613/2018 DATED 01.11.2018. Annexure 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 31.04.2019 IN CRIME NO.613/2018. Annexure 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2021 IN C.C.NO.548/2019. Annexure 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW8 DATED 13.04.2021. Annexure 6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW 10 DATED 27.04.2021.