Dismissed

Johnson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2015Crl.MC/703/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2015, the High Court of Kerala refused to quash the FIR and proceedings in a criminal case mid-investigation. The Court held that quashing was inappropriate given allegations against the first petitioner involving multiple serious offences and that investigation must continue to completion.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings against all petitioners was dismissed; investigation directed to proceed.

Johnson Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/14TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2015 ()

¶6

-------------------------CRIME NO. 2135/2014 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. JOHNSON, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.JOSE, VALOORAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2. SANGEETH BABU, AGED 20 YEARS, W/O.SUDHARSHANAKUMAR, MULLAPPALLI VEEDU, KORATTY CHETTARIKKARA, KORATTY KIZHAKKUM MURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. TINTO, AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.ANTONY, POUTHUSSERY HOUSE, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU KARA, KORATTY KIZHAKKUM MURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. SINOJ, AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.SURENDRAN, MALAYINMMEL HOUSE, MARANGADAM BHAGAM, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 278.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2135/2014 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. ANNEX-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF REMAND REPORT OF ACCUSED 2 AND 3 IN THE SAID CRIME. ANNEX-A3: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/1/2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.UBAID, J.

Crl. M.C No. 703 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2015.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioners herein seek orders quashing the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 2135 of 2014. The investigation is in progress. There is police report that the first petitioner is involved in so many crimes. Many of these crimes involve serious offences also. It would be inappropriate to quash the proceedings now at this stage and pass orders in favour of the first petitioner. Investigation will have to continue properly. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, he can pursue appropriate relief possible under the law. At the stage of investigation this court cannot act under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the whole prosecution, especially when there is report that the first petitioner is involved in so many crimes, and that he is even in the list of rowdies in the police station.

¶30

Now a request comes from the others that the proceeding as regards them may be quashed. This is not the stage for such of course. Investigation is in progress and the final report is yet to come. If the proceedings as against the

¶31

Crl. M.C No. 703 of 2015 2

¶32

petitioners 2 and 3 are quashed at this stage, it will definitely affect the pending investigation against the first accused. Of course, it is true that criminal prosecution can be quashed in part in relation to one or the other of the accused. Such a course can be resorted to during investigation, only in extreme cases where there is absolutely no material to proceed against one or the other. Here I do not find such a case. Let investigation proceed, and if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the final report, they can pursue appropriate relief under the law. The grievance of the first petitioner is that he has been in jail as a remand prisoner. The remedy is to apply for bail under the law, and not to get the prosecution as such quashed.

¶33

In the result, this CrlM.C is dismissed.

¶34

P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶35

sab

Johnson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson 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

Bindu Kumar B Vs the Excise Inspector

N.a.Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs Station House Officer

Chacko Joseph Vs State Represented by Public Prosecutor

Suresh Vs Excise Inspector

Johnson Vs State of Kerala