Allowed

Sreejith v. Ibrahim Haji

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016Crl.MC/2157/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Kerala quashed all pending proceedings against the petitioner in a legacy case where co-accused were acquitted, disputes were amicably resolved with victims, and the court found a strong case for invoking inherent jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A 1 FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner pending as L.P.No.107 of 2004 are quashed.

Sreejith Vs Ibrahim Haji — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2157 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------LP. NO.107/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.19:

¶8

SREEJITH, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VATAKKEPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. IBRAHIM HAJI, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 68 YEARS, CHELAKKANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. KAKKATTIL, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 507.

¶12

2. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, CHELAKKANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. KAKKATTIL, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673 507.

¶13

3. MOHAMMAD SHIHAB, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS, CHELAKKANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. KAKKATTIL, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673 507.

¶14

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA. R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H. JASMINE.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2157 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE-1	COPY OF FIR WITH F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.132/2001 OF KUTTIADI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2	TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN S.C.121/2013 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE VATAKARA.
ANNEXURE 3	SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 4	SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 5	SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 6	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.132/2001 OF KUTTIADY POLICE STATION.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 2157 of 2016

¶29

- - - - Dated 18^th August, 2016

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in L.P.No.107 of 2004

¶33

on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Nadapuram. The said case has arisen from Crime No.132 of 2001 of Kuttiadi Police Station.

¶34

2.After investigation final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioner and 18 others. The petitioner was arrayed as the 11^th accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the case was taken cognizance as S.C.No.192 of 2004. The petitioner and the 7^th accused were not available for trial and the case was proceeded with and by judgment dated 4.11.2006 all the other accused were found not guilty and were acquitted.

¶35

3.It appears that thereafter, the 7^th accused surrendered before the Court of Sessions and the case against him was

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.2157 of 2016

¶37

-2-

¶38

proceeded with and as per judgment dated 5.2.2015 in S.C.No.121 of 2013 of the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode he was found not guilty and was acquitted.

¶39

4.After acquittal of all other accused, the disputes have been amicably resolved between the petitioner and victims. The victims have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 and they are represented by their counsel.

¶40

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents

¶41

1 to 3 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

6.I have gone through Annexure 2 judgment as well. It is borne out from paragraph 10 of the judgment that none of the witnesses examined supported the case of the prosecution. It was on its basis that the order of acquittal was recorded against the co-accused.

¶43

7.Furthermore , it is evident from the seperate affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3 , that the disputes have been amicably resolved . I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.2157 of 2016 -3-

¶45

invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT

¶46

108).

¶47

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure A 1 FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as L.P.No.107 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Nadapuram are quashed.

¶48

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶49

kp/-19.8.16

Sreejith v. Ibrahim Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith v. Ibrahim Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs Roopesh

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar K. Vs the State of Kerala

M.M.Abdul Salam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Siemens Limited Vs State of Kerala