Dismissed

Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2007Crl.MC/89/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal petition challenging a pending逮捕 warrant in a long pending case. It held that co-accused acquittal does not justify quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but composition is possible for compoundable offences. The petitioner was directed to appear for bail on surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to appear before Magistrate for bail application on surrender.

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 30TH MAGHA 1928

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 89 of 2007() ----------------------CC.910/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR

¶6

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

ABDUL KAREEM P.V., S/O. M.P.MUHAMMED, CHENGALAI, THERLAYI, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT

¶10

RESPONDENTS: STATE / DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

ABDUL RAHIMAN, THIYANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, S/O. ALI, THERLAYI, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.BASANT, J

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.89 of 2007

¶18

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 323 and 341 read with 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were 5 accused persons, it is submitted. Investigation was completed and the final report was filed and the case was registered as C.C.190 of 1988. Accused 3 and 4 were absconding and the case against accused 1, 2 , 5 & 6 proceeded as C.C.361 of 1990 and they were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against accused 3 & 4 was split up and refiled as C.C.910 of 1993. The case was transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases and the same is pending as L.P.C.116 of 1994. The case against the 4^th accused was split up and the case against him has since been quashed by this Court as per order in Crl.M.C.989 of 2003.

¶21

The case against the petitioner is pending as L.P.C.116 of 1994. That case was originally numbered as C.C.910 of 1993 after it was split up. The case records in C.C.910 of 1993 ie. L.P.C.116 of 1994 are available with the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur, it is reported. According to the petitioner the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner along with the defacto complainant shall appear before the learned Magistrate and

¶22

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.89 of 2007

¶24

file application for composition. Composition of the compoundable offences can be accepted. The learned Magistrate may certainly consider whether there is any worthwhile allegation of the petitioner having committed any non compoundable offence. Only if there is such material, need the proceedings be continued against the petitioner. The petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate and claim dropping of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C in the light of the composition. The acquittal of the co-accused cannot by itself justify the prayer for quashing of proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is clear from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552].

¶25

This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a warrant of arrest is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner can certainly appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not appear earlier. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No specific or special directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.89 of 2007

¶28

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [ 2003(1) KLT 339]. It is in thee circumstances further observed that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

¶29

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶30

rtr/-

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.89 of 2007 4

Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnankutty and Others Vs State of Kerala

Thadiyananikkal Veettil George Vs Forest Range Officer

P.Ramankutty Vs State of Kerala

Lalitha Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Devassia Vs Georgekutty Peter

Reji Vs State of Kerala