Allowed

Jaisal v. Salim

Kerala HC3 Jul 2015Crl.MC/2513/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala in Criminal Misc. No.2513 of 2015 quashed a charge sheet filed against two accused as they were acquitted in a related trial. The court held that the prosecution case lacked substance, co-accused were acquitted, and the complainant had settled. Continuing proceedings would waste judicial resources.

What did the court decide?

Impugned final report/charge sheet (C.C. No.700/2013) and all further proceedings against petitioners are quashed.

Jaisal Vs Salim — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2513 of 2015

¶6

C.C.NO.700/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY

¶7

CRIME NO.38/2009 OF THE THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 5 :

¶9

1. JAISAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KUNNUMEL HOUSE, EERPPONA, KEDAVOOR AMSOM, THACHAPOYIL P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶10

2. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, NELLIKUNNUMEL HOUSE, EERPPONA, KEDAVOOR AMSOM, THACHAPOYIL P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶13

1. SALIM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, KANNEERUPPIL HOUSE, KODAVOOR VILLAGE, IRPONA DESOM, THACHAPOYIL P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 573, (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT).

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA

¶17

SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶18

R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2513 of 2015

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE A1: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.38/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION DATED 01.02.2009.

¶25

ANNEXURE A2: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY IN CRIME NO.38/2009 DATED 29.04.2009. ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2013 IN C.C.NO.298/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY. ANNEXURE A4: THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2015.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.2513 Of 2015

¶33

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2015.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 5 in Anx-A2 final

¶36

report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.38/2009 of Thamarassery Police Station, registered for offences under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 323 & 324 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries. As the petitioners were not available for trial, the case against them was split up. The remaining accused faced trial in C.C.No.298/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, in which the said court as per Anx-A3 judgment rendered on 13.8.2013 had acquitted all the other coaccused. The case against the petitioners is now pending as C.C.No.700/2013 on the file of the above said court. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-

¶37

::2::

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.2513 Of 2015

¶39

accused as per Anx-A3 judgment. Moreover, the 1st respondent (defacto complainant) has sworn to Anx-A4 affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and that he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the prayer for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings has been made in the instant Crl.M.C.

¶40

On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record, the court below held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving any of the offences against the accused. From a reading of Anx-A3 judgment it can be seen that the substratum of prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-accused. No meaningful purpose will be subserved by prolonging the agony of the impugned criminal proceedings now pending against the petitioners. Any further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to mere wastage of precious resources of the State including that of the judiciary.

¶41

::3::

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2513 Of 2015

¶43

In this view of the matter, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-A2 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.38/2009 of Thamarassery Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.700/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners herein are quashed.

¶44

With these observations and directions, this Crl.M.C stands disposed of.

¶45

bkn/-

Jaisal v. Salim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaisal v. Salim

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

Shamseer Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

A.Salim Abdul Karim Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf C K Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf V.P. Vs the State of Kerala