Dismissed

Haneefa E.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2012Crl.MC/510/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash split-up criminal proceedings alleging IPC offences and PDPP Act violations. Court held that prior acquittal of co-accused was based on lack of evidence, not exculpatory findings against petitioner. Petition dismissed with direction for early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of case against petitioner and appearing accused within two months.

Haneefa E.V. Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 510 of 2012 ()

¶6

CC.669/2009 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

HANEEFA E.V. S/O.ABOOBACKER, ELLATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE THEKKEVAVANOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR

¶14

ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DSV/-

¶16

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.

¶17

Crl.M.C.NO. 510 OF 2012

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the first accused in C.C.No.669/2009, a case split up from C.C.No.237/2007, which is split up from C.C.No.299/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi, seeks an order to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A2 final report alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341 and 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with some of the accused faced the trial in C.C.No.299/2001. While so he got employment abroad. Therefore, he could not appear before the trial court when the case

¶21

Crl.M.C.NO. 510 OF 2012

¶22

¶23

was posted for recording the statement of the accused. Consequently, the trial court proceeded with the accused who were present before the court and by Annexure A1 judgment dated 28/06/2007, the other accused who faced the trial were acquitted. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled. According to the petitioner no offence is revealed out and none of the assailants were identified by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, no purpose would be served by proceeding with the trial in the split up case. I have gone through Annexure A1 judgment. I find that there is no discussion about the evidence as against this petitioner. There is no mention in Annexure A1 that the prosecution case is totally false or that the case against the petitioner is not established. The specific

¶24

Crl.M.C.NO. 510 OF 2012

¶25

¶26

finding is that case against the accused who faced trial were not established. In the above circumstance, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 and quash all further proceedings in the split up case. The remedy open to the petitioner is to persuade the trial court for an early disposal.

¶27

In the result, this petition is dismissed; however directing the trial court to dispose the case as against the petitioner and other appearing accused at the earliest, at any rate, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which the petitioner shall produce before the trial court.

¶28

P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE

¶29

DSV/-

¶30

Crl.M.C.NO. 510 OF 2012 4

Haneefa E.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneefa E.V. 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

Yousuf Vs the State of Kerala

Janeesh Vs State of Kerala

Thresyamma Varghese Vs State of Kerala

N.Malathi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith N. Vs the State of Erala

Rajesh @ Raju Vs Excise Inspector