LAWS(KER)-2007-3-718

SANTHOSH S/O. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 05, 2007
Santhosh S/O. Balakrishnan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the third accused in a prosecution interalia under Sections 323 and 427 read with 149 I.P.C. He faces allegations along with six other accused. Accused 1,2 and 4 to 7 were available for trial. They stood trial. The learned Magistrate, by Annexure -I judgment came to the conclusion that all the accused who faced trial are entitled to be acquitted. The learned Magistrate took note of the defects in the prosecution case. The complaint was belated. There was no injury whatsoever suffered by the victim. All the accused were relatives of the wife of PW1. The learned Magistrate, in paragraph 15, has entered the following finding:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no semblance of an allegation even of any specific overt act against the petitioner. In the circumstances, there cannot be an allegation now that the petitioner was a member of any unlawful assembly. No allegation of having committed any offence principally has been raised against the petitioner. In these circumstances, on the basis of the findings already recorded which have become final, the continuance of the prosecution will be traversity of justice or transparent abuse of the process of the court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Rule 16 of the Kerala Criminal Rules and Practice must have recorded the finding that the allegation against the petitioner herein also being totally and wholly false, further proceedings in the case can be discontinued.

(3.) HAVING considered all the relevant inputs and having gone through the entire materials relied on by the prosecution against the petitioner and the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate in Annexure -IV judgment, I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can safely be invoked. The dictum in Moosa v. : 2006(1)KLT552 does not bar the invocation of such powers in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.