Disposed

Sirajudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Feb 2016Crl.MC/320/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition where the petitioner, arraigned as the 7th accused, challenged his inclusion. The Court held the issue relates to trial merits and is premature at this stage, leaving the petitioner liberty to argue before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 320 of 2016 is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up contentions before the trial court.

Sirajudheen Vs 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 320 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC NO. 822/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, PARAPPANANGADI

¶7

CRIME NO. 224/2009 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER : - (ACCUSED 7):

¶9

-----------------------------------------

¶10

SIRAJUDHEEN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. UMMER, ARAKKALAKATH HOUSE, K.PURAM THANALOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

2. KALLUTHIRUTHY KANTHALLUR PARAMBIL MOOSA, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, ELIKATTY PARAMBU, PULLUR PIN - 676 802.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 320 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CMP NO.1231/2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE-B: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 25.5.2009 ANNEXURE-C: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE ANNEXURE-D: CERTIFIED COPY OF CMP NO.1087/2013 ANNEXURE-E: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPORT DATED 25.11.2013. ANNEXURE-F: THE REPORT TO DELETE THE PETITIONER FROM THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE-G: THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE POLICE TO ADD THE PETITIONER AS A7. ANNEXURE-H: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL FRESH CHARGE LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2013

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶28

====================

¶29

CRL.M.C. No. 320 of 2016

¶30

====================

¶31

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The petitioner is the 7^th accused in C.C.No.822 of

¶35

2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Parappanangadi. One Moideenkutty Haji died on 22.12.2008. By making use of a power of attorney executed by Moideenkutty Haji, when he was alive, some of his children transferred some properties of late Moideenkutty Haji, after his death. The petitioner was the Document Writer and Scribe, who had allegedly prepared and got registered the said document after the death of the said Moideenkutty Haji, by making use of the power of attorney.

¶36

Even though the petitioner was not an accused in

¶37

the case at first, later a further investigation was ordered

¶38

CRL.M.C.No. 320 of 2016

¶39

-: 2 :-

¶40

under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has been arraigned as the 7^th accused in the case, through the further Final Report in the matter. According to the petitioner, at the most, the investigating officer could have arraigned the concerned Sub Registrar and not the petitioner as the accused.

¶41

The present contentions resorted to by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, as the same are relating to the merits of the case. The present stage is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioner are false.

¶42

With liberty to the petitioner to take up all these contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶44

DSV/25/2/16

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

P.A. To Judge

Sirajudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajudheen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha P. Vs State of Kerala

Arun @ Manish Vs Arun Prathapan

Franklin Vs State of Kerala

Sheejakumari Vs State of Kerala

Sajith @ Achu Vs State of Kerala

Chandu P. Das Vs the State of Kerala