Allowed

Mohammed Shuhaib v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 May 2016Crl.MC/2598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminalMisc application under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending proceedings against the petitioner. The Court noted the settlement of the case by the injured witness and the quashing of similar proceedings against a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Cr.M.C. No. 2598 of 2016 allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1822/2014 quashed.

Mohammed Shuhaib Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2598 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 887/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 127/2012 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MOHAMMED SHUHAIB, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. AHMMED V., KALLINGAL HOUSE, OPP. KALLINGAL PALLI, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAHUL SASI

¶10

SMT.NEETHU PREM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rvs.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2598 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGESHEET IN CRIME NO 127OF 2012 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF C.C. 887/2012 OF JFCMII, HOSDURG DATED 27-11-2014.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC NO 1788 OF 2015 DATED 19-03-2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.2598 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as “the Code” ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶32

2.The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 5^th accused in Crime No.127/2012 of Bekal police station.

¶33

3.After competition of investigation, final report was laid before the learned Magistrate. The accused Nos. 3 and 5 in the aforesaid crime did not face the trial proceedings. As against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, trial was proceeded with and as per judgment dated 27.11.2014 in C.C.No.887/2012, the learned Magistrate had passed an order of acquittal under S.248(1) of the Code.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2598 of 2016 : 2 :

¶35

The case against the 3^rd accused and the petitioner herein

¶36

were split up and refiled as C.C.No.1822/2014.

¶37

5.It is further submitted that the 3^rd accused had approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.1788/2015 and as per Annexure A3 order dated 19.03.2015, the proceedings against him was quashed on the ground that the substratum of the case as against him was destroyed. The petitioner submits that in view of Annexures A2 and A3, there is absolutely no reason why the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner herein should be proceeded with. It is submitted that it is just an abuse of process and will only be an exercise in futilty.

¶38

6.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and I have perused Annexures A2 and A3.

¶39

7.As is evident from Annexure A2, the injured witness who was examined as PW2 did not depose in terms of the prosecution case. He had stated in unmistakable terms that the case against the accused has been settled out of

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.2598 of 2016 : 3 :

¶41

Court and that he do not wish that the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner should continue. Annexure A3 judgment would also reveal that this Court had taken note of Annexure A2 and had granted relief to the 3^rd accused who is identically placed as the petitioner herein. I am, therefore, of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code.

¶42

8.In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.1822/2014 in Crime No.127/2012 of Bekal police station shall stand quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

[True copy]

¶47

P.A to Judge

Mohammed Shuhaib v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shuhaib 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

Varghese @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen @ Shamsu Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Kunjayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala

Aneer Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Athirapilly Police Station