Allowed

Shahul Hameed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 May 2016Crl.MC/2214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case was dismissed as per the court's decision. The court directed the Magistrate to take coercive steps against absconding accused under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC and proceed with the trial of the present accused to its logical conclusion under Section 482 CrPC. The petition was disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Magistrate to take coercive steps against absconding accused under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC and proceed with the trial of the present accused.

Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC. No.2214 of 2016 ()

¶6

(ARISING OUT OF C.C. NO.409/2009 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE, FROM CRIME NO.119/2009 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.M.P.NOORUDHIN, AGED 40, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, VAIDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 633.

¶9

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE

¶10

SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT.MARY JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 631.

¶14

SAJI, S/O.SAMIKUTTY, AGED 36, CHERUVALATH HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 019.

¶15

ANOOP C. S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 38, ANOOP VILLA, VYDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 633.

¶16

SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS BABU, S/O.NAYADI, AGED 40, SUNIL NIVAS, PUTHOKODE, MALAPPURAM-673 633.

¶17

...2/-

¶18

Crl.MC. No.2214 of 2016()

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

FEROZ, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 40, PALLIKKOONAYIL, PENGADU, 11TH MILE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 633.

¶21

AZEEZ ALIAS ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 37, PAHELIL HOUSE, PENGAD, 11TH MILE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 633.

¶22

R1 & R2 BY UBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC. No.2214 of 2016()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 31.3.2009 IN

¶28

CRIME NO.119/09 OF THE FEROKE POLICE STATION.

¶29

ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY EXTRACT IN CC NO.409/2009

¶30

OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V, KOZHIKODE.

¶31

ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS AS DOWN LOADED FROM WEBSITE. ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 23.2.2016 IN CC NO.409/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V, KOZHIKODE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.2214 of 2016

¶39

- - - - Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶40

ORDER

¶41

1.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the de facto complainant in C.C No.409 of 2009 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V, Kozhikode. The respondent No's 3 to 7 are being proceeded against in the said case for having committed offences punishable under Section 143 , 147 , 148 , 452 , 427 , 294 (b) r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that only the 3^rd accused had appeared before court in obedience to the summons issued. Accused No. 1 , 2 , 4 and 5 are keeping themselves scarce and the court below has not initiated any coercive steps to secure their presence.

¶43

A report was called for from the learned Magistrate. The said report vindicates the submission of the learned counsel as

¶44

Crl.M.C.2214/16 -:2:-

¶45

no steps are seen initiated by the court below to secure the presence of the said accused. Sufficient indication is given in the said report that Rule 16 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 has been violated in its entirety. It is also borne out that trial as against 3^rd accused has reached the end stages. The learned counsel fairly submits that his prayer is limited to issuance of coercive steps against the absconding accused so that their presence could be secured and in so far as prayer (c) is concerned , it is submitted that the said relief is not pressed.

¶46

4.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel and the prosecutor, and also the right of the 3^rd accused who have been appearing before court below since 2009 , this Court is of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to direct that the trial against him be proceeded with to its logical conclusion. In so far accused No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are concerned the learned Magistrate is directed to take all

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

Crl.M.C.2214/16

¶49

necessary steps to secure their presence including initiation of proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of

¶50

Criminal Procedure.

¶51

The petition is disposed off.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶53

krj/30.5.16

Shahul Hameed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hameed v. the 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

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin Vs the State of Kerala

Moideen Vs the State of Kerala

Manju Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

John Vs State of Kerala

Sanoj Vs State of Kerala