Allowed

Moideen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2014Crl.MC/3884/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, treating the petitioners as accused, quashed the criminal prosecution under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since the dispute was amicably settled post-complainant's death and material witnesses turned hostile, continuing the trial would be an abuse of legal process.

What did the court decide?

The pending prosecution against the petitioners was quashed; they were released from prosecution and bail bonds were discharged.

Moideen Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/22ND MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3884 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 180/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT-I,MANJERI DATED 11-03-2010

¶7

CRIME NO. 1/2008 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 5:

¶9

MOIDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KARAKKADAN VEEDU, MULLARA, THARISU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

MUHAMMEDALI,

¶11

S/O.ALAVI, KARAKKADAN VEEDU, MULLARA, THARISU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE, KARUVARAKUNDU THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMR. P.MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3884 of 2012 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES :

¶20

I COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW1 TO PW4.

¶21

II COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2010 IN C.C.NO.180 OF 2008.

¶22

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES :

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/18/02

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 3884 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2014

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 5 in C.C.No.180 of 2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Manjeri. The offences alleged in the said case are under Sections 498 A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the second petitioner is an in law (husband of the fourth accused). Pending the proceedings in the trial court, the defacto complainant died. However, the case proceeded for trial. When these petitioners failed to appear in court during trial, they were recorded as absconding accused, and the trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2 to 4. When the matter came up for trial, all the material witnesses including the parents of the deceased defacto complainant turned hostile.

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 3884 of 2012 2

¶33

None of them supported the prosecution during the trial, and they stated that they had not given any statement implicating any of the accused before the police. In such a circumstance, the remaining witnesses were give up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the learned Magistrate closed the evidence, finding that no purpose would be served in proceeding to examine the remaining witnesses. In such a circumstance, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were found not guilty and they were acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 248(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per judgment dated 11.03.2010 in C.C.No.180 of 2008. The case against these two petitioners were split up and refiled and later it was transferred to Long Pending Register.

¶34

The case of the petitioners herein is that they had to be away in connection with some unavoidable circumstances, and so they could not take part in the trial process. In view of the warrants issued against them from

¶35

Crl.M.C.No. 3884 of 2012 3

¶36

the court, they approached this Court with a prayer to quash the prosecution against them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the prosecution proceedings against them would be a sheer waste of time and abuse of legal process, when all the material witnesses have turned hostile in view of the amicable settlement out of court after the death of the defacto complainant.

¶37

On a perusal of the case records including the judgment in C.C.No.180 of 2008 of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Manjeri and the copies of the depositions given by the material witnesses in the said case during trial, this Court founds that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the prosecution against these petitioners. This Court finds that the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute after the death of the defacto complainant, and it was in such a circumstance, the material witnesses including the parents of the deceased did not support the prosecution. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of

¶38

Crl.M.C.No. 3884 of 2012 4

¶39

the material witnesses to incriminate these petitioners or the other accused. Of course, the normal procedure would be to direct the petitioners to surrender before the learned Magistrate and face trial. There is no doubt at all that none of the material witnesses will support the prosecution if these two petitioners are directed to face trial in the trial court. When the matter stands amicably settled out of court, and when the material witnesses have disowned the case, there is no meaning in directing the petitioners herein to face trial. Such a trial would definitely be abuse of legal process and with the full knowledge that the case will end in acquittal, this Court cannot direct the petitioners to face trial. Accordingly this Court finds that the pending prosecution as against the petitioners herein can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution pending against the petitioners herein before the Judicial

¶41

Crl.M.C.No. 3884 of 2012 5

¶42

First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Manjeri as L.P.No.2 of 2012 (C.C.No.206 of 2010) is hereby quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners will stand released from prosecution and the bail bonds, if any executed by them, will stand discharged.

Sd/P. UBAID (JUDGE)

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/13/02

Moideen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideen 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

Saju Vs State of Kerala

Aysha Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs the Village Officer

K.G.James Vs Food Inspector

M.K.Mohammed Rawther Vs State of Kerala

C.C.Wilson Vs Rajan