Dismissed

Salahudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 May 2010Crl.MC/944/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judicial Magistrate held that Section 482 Cr.P.C is not the remedy for an accused omitted from the police final report. The petitioner was directed to file a protest complaint instead. The petition to quash proceedings was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without prejudice to the right to file a protest complaint regarding the omission of the 3rd respondent from the array of accused.

Salahudeen Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 944 of 2010()

¶6

-----------------------CC.1443/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

SALAHUDEEN,S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SABINALAYAM,AVANAVANCHERRY,KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

SRI.S.VIJI

RESPONDENT(S):

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

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

SALAHUDEEN,S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, A.K.G.NAGAR,OPPOSITE DEVA HOSPITAL, AVANAVANCHERRY,ATTINGAL.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.944 of 2010

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, who is the injured/de facto complainant in Crime No.189 of 2005 of Attingal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324 and 326 IPC and now pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal as C.C.No.1443/2006 seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings in the above case.

¶24

According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent, who played an active role behind the assault on the petitioner, has been omitted by the Police. It is the case of the petitioner that eventhough the name of the 3^rd respondent was specifically made a mention in the First Information Statement, he has been omitted in the final report and therefore the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences against the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner would have it that he came to know of about the above omission/deletion only when he received summons in C.C.No.1443 of 2006.

¶25

Crl. M.C. No.944 of 2010

¶26

¶27

If the police have failed to array the 3^rd respondent herein as an accused, his remedy is to file a protest complaint against the Police report. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not the remedy. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a protest complaint against the police report for the alleged deletion of the 3^rd respondent from the array of accused.

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2010.

¶29

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶30

Salahudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salahudeen 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

Prasad @ Pakkaran Vs State of Kerala

Shanalalu Vs the Staton House Officer

Jaffar @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Sivarajan Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and 3 Others Vs Addl.Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukkad

Anila Sasidharan and Another Vs Sasidharan and Another