RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 452 and 326 read with 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was not available for trial. There was a case and a counter case. Parties appear to have settled the dispute. The co-accused have already been tried and acquitted. The petitioner who was employed abroad could not appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has now come to know of the pendency of the split up case against him.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of acquittal of the co-accused as per the judgment, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A1, the proceedings against him also may be quashed. It is submitted that in that prosecution, all relevant witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and no incriminating evidence was tendered before the learned Magistrate in such prosecution against any accused.

(3.) It is now trite and the decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552] by the Full Bench makes the position crystal clear that the hostility of the witnesses in the trial against the co-accused is by itself not a satisfactory or sufficient reason to persuade the Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In fact, to a pointed query by this Court, it is conceded that as the petitioner has been named as an accused in the F.I.R. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot obviously be invoked to concede any premium to persons who perjure before court or in favour of the accused persons who ensure such perjury. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is certainly not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked. Such jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice.