Dismissed

Wilfred v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2008Crl.MC/192/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet filed against the 2nd accused in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court clarified that the petitioner is liable only for concealing the vehicle (Section 201 IPC) and not for other offences, noting he will face trial alongside the principal accused.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet was not quashed; the matter was disposed of by clarifying that the petitioner is liable only for offending Section 201 IPC and not for others.

Wilfred Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 192 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 184/2007 of PARASSALA POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

WILFRED, ARAPPURA VEEDU, TAMARAVILA, KIZKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM

¶12

SRI. K.P. SANTHI SRI. S.S. HUSSAIN SRI. P.K. NIJOY

¶13

RESPONDENTS: STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THANKASWAMY, UTHRAM VEETTIL, UNDANKODE, KUNNATHUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶20

==========================

¶21

CRL.M.C. No. 192 of 2008

¶22

========================== Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2008.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, who is the 2^nd accused in Crime No. 184 of 2007 of Parassala Police Station seeks to quash Annexure I and II charge sheet. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner had no role to play in the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 201 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 196, 146, 182(1) and 66 r/w Section 192(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 he is being charge sheeted for the aforementioned offences. The petitioner would contend that if at all any offence has been made out against him, that is with regard to the offence under Section 201 IPC and he can tried only for the said offence and not for the rest of the offences.

¶25

The above argument stems from the misconception that the petitioner is sought to be tried for offences other than the one punishable under Section 201 IPC. Going by the final report, it is very clear that the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against only for the purpose of concealing the vehicle of those

¶26

CRL. M.C. NO. 192/2008 : 2:

¶27

who have committed the main offences and if so he is being charge sheeted only for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. But the petitioner will have to face the trial along with A1 who will be tried for the rest of the offences including one punishable under Section 201 IPC. Such being the position, I am not inclined to quash the final report

¶28

filed in this case.

¶29

This Crl. M.C is disposed of clarifying the above position.

¶30

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶31

¶32

CRL. M.C. NO. 192/2008 : 3:

Wilfred v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilfred 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh.N.v. Vs State of Kerala

S.R.Dennis Vs State of Kerala

Prabha Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Vs State

Christy Vs State of Kerala