Allowed

Aboobacker v. Pathumma

Kerala HC7 Apr 2009Crl.MC/760/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings where the dispute was settled between the complainant and parties. The court noted acquittal of other accused and lack of conviction material, leading it to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent wastage of judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all further proceedings against the present petitioner in L.P.111/03 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode.

Aboobacker Vs Pathumma — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 760 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------(L.P.111/03 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V, KOZHIKODE)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

-------------------------------

¶9

ABOOBAKER SIDDIQUE, S/O. MOYEENKUTTY, PADIKASALA HOUSE, VELIPRAM AMSOM, DESOM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

---------------------------------------

¶13

1. PATHUMMA, W/O. AVARANKUTTY HAJI, SAIBUNA MANZIL, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 760 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2009.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.111/03 on

¶21

the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. The petitioner is the 5^th accused in C.C.922/97 of the said Court. He is alleged to have committed offences u/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 and 506(ii) r/w S.149 IPC. The learned counsel had brought to my attention the petition filed by the defacto complainant and she is represented by a counsel. She had no objection in quashing the proceedings

¶22

as the matter has been settled. The learned counsel had already brought to my notice the decision of the concerned Magistrate Court in C.C.922/07. There also accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were found not guilty and acquitted. Now the matter is settled between the defacto complainant and the parties and of-course there are non-compoundable offences involved. The Apex Court had laid down that while invoking

¶23

Crl.M.C. 760 OF 2009 -:2:-

¶24

power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the High Court to see what will be the end result of the litigation. Now, the defacto complainant does not have any complaint. The proceedings in the case would reveal that there are no materials for ending in a conviction. So directing the Court below to make a trial of the case will result in wastage of time and therefore taking the clue from various dictums laid down by various Courts, in this case I invoke S.482 Cr.P.C. and quash all further proceedings against the present petitioner in L.P.111/03 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode and accordingly this Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶25

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶26

ul/-

Aboobacker v. Pathumma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker v. Pathumma

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

Manoj.T.J Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ejas Mohamed Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Binumon Vs Baby Mathew

Naniyil Krishnan Vs State of Kerala