Noushad vs Sainaba

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on the basis that the co-accused had been acquitted and thus the proceedings against the petitioners are also liable to be quashed as the very substratum of the case against them is lost.

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 5 in C.C. No. 620 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM Court, Vatakara arising from Crime No. 565 of 2010 of Vatakara Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 406 and 354 of IPC.

Following the investigation, the final report was filed and the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 5 respectively and as they did not appear, the case was split up and refiled as C.C. No. 10 of 2013 before the same Court. By Annexure-2 judgment, accused 2 to 4 were acquitted.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the judgment acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 4 and also the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the de facto complainant and her sister, I am of the view that no purpose is going to be served by the continuance of the proceedings. The de facto complainant and the witness turned hostile and deposed before the court that the accused had not committed the offences alleged against them. The relevant portion of Annexure A2 judgment is quoted below:

"PW1, who is the de facto complainant filed Ext. P1 complaint. She deposed that the accused persons did not harass her demanding dowry. A5 did not outrage her modesty. The accused did not appropriate her gold ornaments. PW2 also deposed that the accused persons did not harass PW1 demanding dowry and they did not appropriate her gold ornaments. PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence on record so as to find A2 to A4 guilty of offences alleged against them. Prosecution could not prove its case against the accused. Hence I found A2 to A4 not guilty of offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 354 read with 34 IPC alleged against them".

In view of the evidence led and going by the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), no purpose will be served by directing the petitioners to face trial at this stage. It will be a futile exercise and will only waste judicial time. Apart from that, there is hardly any chance at all of the prosecution being successful or resulting in any conviction. Interest of justice demands invocation of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure -1 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 10 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara are quashed.