Disposed

Muhammed Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2014Crl.MC/1019/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to delink a criminal case from a counter case due to the absence of accused in the latter, directed the lower court to procure the presence of surviving accused and dispose of both cases within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to procure presence of surviving accused in the counter case and dispose both cases within four months; liberty to transfer to long-pending register.

Muhammed Habeeb Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/28TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1019 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------CC.NO. 868/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, N.PARVUR

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO. 4 :

¶8

MUHAMMED HABEEB S/O.ALIKUNJU, VADAKKEKALATHIL HOUSE, MATTUPURAM MANJALY, KARUMALLOOR.

¶9

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARVUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1019 of 2014 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE A. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PAPER IN CC NO.868/02 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, N.PARVUR.

¶20

ANNEXURE B. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PAPER IN CC NO.907/04 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, N.PARVUR.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶27

--------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2014

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in C.C.No.868/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur, to issue a direction to the concerned magistrate to expedite disposal of the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the 4^th accused in C.C.No.868/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. The allegation was that, he along with others committed the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 143, 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is tried along with C.C.No.907/2004, which is a counter case. Since the

¶31

¶32

Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶33

accused in the counter case are absconding from the court proceedings and non-bailable warrants are pending against them, the said case is not progressing. For the same reason, C.C.868/2002 is also not disposed of, though evidence in the case is over long back. So it is necessary that C.C.No.868/2002 is liable to be de-linked from the counter case and to be disposed of independently. The request made in this regard has not been considered by the learned magistrate which necessitated the petitioner to file this application, seeking the following relief:

¶34

“Therefore in the interest of justice, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur to delink C.C.No.868/2002 from the counter case C.C.No.907/2004 and to dispose the said case with the available evidence on record.”

¶35

On the basis of the allegations made in the petition, a report has been called for from the concerned magistrate, regarding the stage of the cases and the magistrate has send a report, which reads as follows:

¶36

“With reference to the above I may submit the

¶37

Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶38

¶39

following for benign consideration. C.C.907/2004 is a case charge sheeted by Sub Inspector of Police, N.Paravur against six accused persons alleging offences punishable u/Ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC. In this case accused Nos.1 and 4 are no more and others faced trial. The evidence in this case was closed on 12.3.2013 and the case was posted for 313 examination on 11.4.2013. Subsequently though several chances were given for 313 examination they did not appear before this court. Accordingly, as they did not turn up before this court warrant was ordered against the accused. Now the case stands posted for 25.3.2014.

¶40

C.C.868/2002 is a case charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, N. Paravur against five accused including the petitioner herein alleging offences punishable u/Ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w 149 of IPC. Evidence in this case including the defence evidence was closed on 14.2.2013. As the entire proceedings in the counter case C.C.907/2004 are not completed C.C.868/02 is being called with the said counter case for hearing along with it. Being case and counter case upon the submission made by the counsel this court thought it would be improper to hear the matter coparately and that was why C.C.868/02 was not taken up for nearing. The petitioner is the 4^th accused in C.C.868/02. Now both cases stand posted for 25.3.2014.”

¶41

4. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this

¶42

court felt that, the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the evidence in his case is over and he need not wait for the completion of the trial in

¶43

Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶44

¶45

C.C.No.907/04, in which the accused persons are

¶46

absconding and in that case also evidence is over and it is posted for 313 examination. It is not known as to how much time it will take for procuring the presence of accused persons in the counter case. So he prayed for a direction for speedy disposal of their case with time bound manner.

¶47

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶48

It is settled law that, when there is case and

¶49

counter case, then both cases have to be tried by the same court simultaneously and disposed of by separate judgments simultaneously on the same date. If it is done, otherwise, there is a possibility of prejudice being projected by any of the accused persons, against whom an adverse judgment is likely to pass. So considering the circumstances, I feel that

¶50

the prayer for de-linking the present case, in which the petitioner is the accused, cannot be granted at this stage. But at the same time, a direction can be given to the concerned magistrate to take steps to procure the presence

¶51

¶52

Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶53

of accused Nos. 1 and 4, the surviving accused persons facing trial in the counter case, namely C.C. 907/2004, as expeditiously as possible and dispose of both the cases, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months from 25.03.2014, on which date the case is now posted for hearing. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶54

The learned magistrate is directed to take steps to procure the presence of the surviving accused persons in C.C.No.907/2004, which is a counter case for C.C.No.868/02 in which the petitioner is an accused, by taking all possible coercive steps as provided under law and then dispose of both the cases, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from 25.03.2014, on which date the case is now posted for hearing in this case and further steps in the other case. If procuring the presence of accused in C.C.No.907/04 is not possible in the

¶55

¶56

Crl. M.C. No.1019 of 2014

¶57

near future, then the magistrate is at liberty to take steps to transfer the case to the register of long pending cases, as provided under law, after complying with all procedures and then dispose of the other case in accordance with law.

¶58

With the above observation and direction this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.

¶59

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶60

// True Copy //

¶61

P.A. to Judge

¶62

Muhammed Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Habeeb 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

Sajith Jamaludheen Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Hakeem Vs State of Kerala

Gokuladasan Vs State of Kerala

Rojan Vs State of Kerala