Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case For 'Stealing' Court Record, Says Complaint By Third Party Not Maintainable
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was accused of stealing a case bundle from the trial court.Justice C.S. Dias noted that the trial court ought not to have take cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by a third party, when the statutory mandate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was for the officer of the Court or...
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was accused of stealing a case bundle from the trial court.
Justice C.S. Dias noted that the trial court ought not to have take cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by a third party, when the statutory mandate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was for the officer of the Court or an authorised person to do so.
“The crime has been allegedly committed in respect of a case bundle that was custodia legis. Admittedly, the Trial Court has not lodged any complaint or initiated any proceedings regarding the missing of the case bundle. Instead, it is the 2nd respondent who has filed the complaint, which had led to the registration of the crime. As the case bundle was custodia legis , the Trial Court ought to have initiated a proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ('Cr.P.C.', in short) Unfortunately, the Trial Court without looking into this crucial aspect has taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of a complaint filed by a third party,” the Court remarked.
Section 195 CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences relating to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court except when a complaint is preferred by an officer of the Court or a person authorised. Section 340 lays down the procedure to be followed in cases under Section 195 CrPC.
The petitioner before the Court was also accused in a cheque bounce case initiated against him by the de facto complainant in the present case. As per the complaint, while the cheque case was pending before the trial court, the case bundle went missing. It is alleged that the petitioner and the 2nd accused bench clerk committed the theft, and caused loss of Rs. 6,75,000/-.
On receipt of the complaint, the trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 381 and 201 of the IPC.
While so, the 2nd accused bench clerk preferred a plea seeking quashment of the criminal case and the High Court allowed the same finding that there are no material witnesses or proof that he committed the offences.
Following this, the petitioner also approached the High Court for a similar relief. The petitioner contended that he is on par with his co-accused and the case against him may also be quashed. He had arrayed the de facto complainant as 2nd respondent in his plea.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the trial court had failed to initiate proceedings under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even though the case bundle went missing when it was in the court's custody.
The Court then went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner also on the basis of the afore finding and the order quashing case against his co-accused.
Thus, it allowed the plea.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2022
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Counsel for the petitioner: M.R. Sarin
Counsel for the respondents: H. Kiran, M.P. Prasanth – Public Prosecutor