Disposed

Sunilkumar @ Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2008Crl.MC/76/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition by the 9th accused in a Section 395 IPC case, the Kerala High Court held that proceedings cannot be quashed due to the acquittal of a co-accused. The court directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court instead of quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before the trial court and file an application for regular bail within two weeks; pending warrants not to be executed till disposal.

Sunilkumar @ Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 76 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------SC.342/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CP.55/1996 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SUNILKUMAR @ KUMAR, S/O.LOUIS, LOUIS BHAVAN, T.C.34/1369, VALIYATHOPPU, KINATTADIVILAKAM PURAYIDAM, SHANMUGHAM WARD, PETTAH VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI. SABU SREEDARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 76 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2008.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, who is the 9^th accused in crime No. 127/1992 of Valiyathura Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure A1 FIR and all proceedings in Sessions Case No. 342/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Thiruvananthapuram so far as they relate to the petitioner.

¶19

In the light of the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006(1) KLT 552) the proceedings cannot be quashed by this Court mainly for the reason that the co-accused has been acquitted on trial by the court below. Hence, the proper course for the petitioner would be to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail and then face trial. Accordingly, this M.C. is disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and file an application for regular bail within two weeks from today. In case he complies with the above condition, that court shall consider and dispose of the bail application preferably on the same day on which it is filed after examining the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance and also after considering his contention that the co-accused in the case have been acquitted after trial. Warrants, if any, pending against the petitioner shall not be executed till the disposal of the bail application

¶20

Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.

¶21

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶22

Sunilkumar @ Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar @ Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramarajan Vs State of Kerala

S.Ramesh Vs v.Ramachandran

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Cherian T.John Vs Excise Inspector

P.M.Hassankutty Vs State of Kerala and Another

Usman Vs the Sub Inspector of Police