High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-05Quashed

Rafeeq v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. 5308/2023) and Basheer v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. 5315/2023)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2023-07-05
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.Cs are allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners in S.C. Nos.1329/2021 and 699/2019 before the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Manjeri stand quashed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The substratum of the prosecution case was found to be dislodged, and the entire prosecution could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rafeeq
Basheer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Sub Inspector of Police Perumbadappu Police Station, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.B. Arunkumar
• Pooja K.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri MP Prasanth PP
• Sri T.R Renjith SR PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two Criminal Misc. Cases arise from Crime No. 180/2004 registered at Perumbadappu Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 332, 435, 427 and 153 read with 149 IPC. The Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, took cognizance as S.C. No. 163/2010; several accused were acquitted, while others were split up and refiled as S.C. No. 699/2019 and S.C. No. 1329/2021. Petitioners in both M.C.s seek to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that with the acquittal of most co-accused, the substratum of the prosecution case has collapsed. The matter was argued by petitioners’ counsel K.B. Arunkumar and Pooja K.S. and the Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth. The court relied on Sahadevan & another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police to accept the proposition that where the entire prosecution case is unreliable and cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, no purpose is served in continuing the trial and the jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. The judge found the substratum of the prosecution case to be dislodged and accordingly quashed all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. Nos. 1329/2021 and 699/2019, allowing both Crl.M.Cs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 332, 435, 427 and 153 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Substratum of the prosecution case
Benefit should accrue to all accused when the entire prosecution case is unreliable
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when substratum is lost

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that after acquittals of a substantial number of co-accused, the substratum of the prosecution case has collapsed. They invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. with support from Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, arguing that continuing with the trial would be futile and that the court should exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings entirely in the interest of justice. They assert that the entire prosecution cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt and that the remedy should extend to all accused rather than a limited few.

Contentions of Respondents

The document presents the prosecution outline and the State’s counsel’s participation but does not provide a detailed, separate argument by the respondents; the material indicates the State asked the court to consider the impugned proceedings, though the record primarily frames the petitioners’ submissions. The court ultimately evaluates the substratum and applies precedents to determine whether quashing is warranted.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sahadevan & another v. State of Tamil Nadu	2012 (6) SCC 403	Positive	Cited to support the principle that where the entire prosecution case is unreliable, benefit should accrue to all accused and not just those who faced trial.
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police	2006 (1) KLT 552	Positive	Full Bench authority cited to authorize invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the substratum of the case is lost.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rafeeq v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. 5308/2023) and Basheer v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. 5315/2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5308 OF 2023** **SC 1329/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - III,** **MANJERI** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7:** RAFEEQ, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MAJEED, VALAPPILAKAM (H), PULLONATHANI, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679586 BY ADVS.K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S. ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679587 SRI MP PRASANTH PP, THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5315/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 -:2:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5315 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 699/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT, MANJERI** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** BASHEER, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. SAINUDEEN, POOKKAYIL (H), MARANJERI, PURANGU, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679584 BY ADVS.K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S. ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679587 SRI T.R RENJITH SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5308/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2023 Both these Crl.M.Cs have been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of the acquittal of the remaining accused. 2. Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram registered a crime as Crime No.180/2004 against 16 accused persons. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 332, 435, 427 and 153 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After investigation, final report was filed. The Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri took cognizance of the offences and numbered the case as S.C.No.163/2010. The accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 faced trial and they were acquitted as per Annexure 2 judgment. The case against the remaining accused were split up and refiled. Thereafter, the accused No.6 approached this Court and the case as against him was quashed as per Annexure 3. The case Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 -:4:- against the accused No.3 was split up and numbered as S.C.No.699/2019 and the case against the accused No.7 has been numbered as S.C.No.1329/2021. Crl.M.C.No.5315/2023 has been filed by the accused No.3 and Crl.M.C.No.5308/2023 has been filed by the accused No.7. According to the petitioners, in both Crl.M.Cs, in view of the acquittal of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, the substratum of the prosecution case is dislodged. It is in these circumstances they have filed these Crl.M.Cs invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard Sri. K.B. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The prosecution case in short is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common object to promote enmity between two religions, raised slogans in order to promote communal riot. In S.C.No.163/2010, on the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined. PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses. They could not identify the accused as members Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 -:5:- of the mob that has committed the offence. The petitioners herein also stand on the same footing as that of the accused in S.C.No.163/2010. That apart, based on Annexure 2 judgment, this Court already quashed all further proceedings against accused No.6. A reading of Annexure 2 would show that the substratum of the prosecution case is dislodged. 6. The Apex Court in _**Sahadevan & another v. State of Tamil Nadu**_ [2012 (6) SCC 403] has held that, if the entire prosecution case has been found to be unreliable and the prosecution as a whole has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then benefit should accrue to all the accused persons and not merely to the accused who faced trial. The Full Bench of this Court in _**Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police**_ [2006 (1) KLT 552] in paragraph 50 held that in a case where the very substratum of the case is lost by the acquittal of the co-accused, the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be invoked. 7. This is a case where the entire prosecution case was found to be unreliable and the prosecution as a whole has not Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 -:6:- been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the trial of the case. For these reasons, I am of the view that these are fit cases where the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could be invoked. Accordingly, all further proceedings as against the petitioners in S.C.Nos.1329/2021 and 699/2019 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Manjeri hereby stands quashed. The Crl.M.Cs are allowed. Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** ## **kp** Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 ## -:7:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5315/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED PURSUANT CRIME NO. 180/2004 OF PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2015 IN S.C.NO. 163/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURTIII, MANJERI ALONG WITH TYPED COPY Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2020 IN CRL.M.C NO. 3322/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Crl.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5308/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED PURSUANT CRIME NO. 180/2004 OF PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2015 IN S.C.NO. 163/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURTIII, MANJERI ALONG WITH TYPED COPY Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2020 IN CRL.M.C NO. 3322/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT