Quashed

Mr.Mansoor.M.a and Other v. Abdul Basheer and Others

Kerala HC2 Nov 2010Crl.MC/4074/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against three accused persons. The court held that continuing the trial was futile due to the acquittal of co-accused, settlement of disputes, and hostile testimony of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 465/2008 pending against the petitioners before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod is quashed.

Mr.Mansoor.M.a and Other Vs Abdul Basheer and Others — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4074 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------( C.C.NO.1754/2005 NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO. 465/2008 , CRIME NO.789/2005 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION) -------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

1. MR.MANSOOR.M.A, AGED 26 YEARS (A5), S/O.ASSINAR, VELLARIKUNDU, ERMALAM, MUTTATHODY GRAMAM, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶10

2. HUSIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS (A7), S/O.VILIYANTEMOOLA (HOUSE),

¶11

ERMALAM, MUTTATHODY GRAMAM, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶12

3. ZABUL KADAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS(A9), S/O.ABOOBACKER, PATINHAREMOLLA (HOUSE), MUTTATHODY GRAMAM, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

¶14

SRI.GOVIND .P. RENUKADEVI

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶16

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

¶17

1. ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHENGALA PANCHAYATH, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶18

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S H O KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SIJU MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶23

=========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4074 OF 2010

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 2^nd day of November,2010

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are accused 5,7 and 9 in C.C.

¶28

1754/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. As they were absconding, case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.465/2008. The other eight accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. By Annexure A2 order dated 27.5.2008, those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against them,

¶29

contending that in view of the order of acquittal of the co-accused and the settlement of the disputes with the first respondent, the de facto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶30

Second respondent appeared through a

¶31

Crl.M.C.4074/2010 2

¶32

counsel and filed a joint petition with the petitioners stating that they have settled all the disputes and in view of the settlement, the case is to be compounded.

¶33

Prosecution case is that on 20.10.2005 at

¶34

about 10.30 p.m, eleven accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing riot and to trespass into the Jans arts and Sports Club, and in furtherance of the common object, they committed rioting and trespassed into the club building by damaging the doors and caused damages to the tune of Rs.5000/- by destroying the furniture and thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147, 451 and 427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure A2 judgment of the learned Magistrate when the co-accused were tried, establishes that when first respondent was examined as PW1 he did not support the prosecution case and deposed that he did not witness the incident. The only other witness who was examined as an eye witness turned hostile. The judgment

¶35

shows that a compromise petition was filed before

¶36

Crl.M.C.4074/2010 3

¶37

the learned Magistrate in that case, though the offences were not permitted to be compounded.

¶38

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and the Public Prosecutor, it is absolutely clear that no purpose will be served by directing the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of a trial. It would result only in wasting the valuable time of the court. The eye witnesses, when examined earlier already turned hostile. The joint statement filed by the first respondent establishes that even if he is to be examined again, he is not going to give evidence against the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶39

Petition is allowed. C.C.465/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod against the petitioners is quashed.

¶40

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

tpl/-

¶42

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶43

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶44

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶45

SEPTEMBER,2006

Mr.Mansoor.M.a and Other v. Abdul Basheer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Mansoor.M.a and Other v. Abdul Basheer and Others

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

Sandhya Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Sidheek Vs Food Inspector

Eorge K.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ganeshan V.C Vs State

Kumar Vs State