Allowed

Muhammed Anees v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3236/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner which had been split from the original case. The court noted that co-accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence, shattering the case's substratum, and a settlement had occurred between the petitioner and other victims.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings as against the petitioner in the Assistant Sessions Court, Kochi are quashed.

Muhammed Anees 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3236 of 2016

¶6

S.C.NO. 121/2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOCHI

¶7

CRIME NO. 813/2011 OF KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOCHI

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶9

MUHAMMED ANEES,

¶10

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, PATTERAPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶11

KUMBALANGI P.O, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

¶13

SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT & INJURED :

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶16

REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.813/2011), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

2. VISWAJITH, S/O. C.R.KABEER AGED 25 YEARS, CHANIYIL VEEDU, KUMBALANGI NORTH, KUMBALANGI-682 007.

¶18

3. AJITH SANKER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. C.R.KABEER, CHANIYIL VEEDU, KUMBALANGI NORTH, KUMBALANGI-682 007.

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MIZVER

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 3236 of 2016

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶25

A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE POLICE DATED 01.05.2011.
A2	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.813/2011 OF KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION DATED 01.05.2011.
A3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.813/2011 OF KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION DATED 08.08.2011 ALONG WITH STATEMENTS ANNEXED THERETO.
A4	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A5	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A6	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A7	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A8	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW5 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A9	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW6 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A10	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2015 IN S.C.NO.517/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOCHI.
A11	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 11.03.2016.
A12	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 11.03.2016.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3236 of 2016

¶33

- - - - Dated 29^th June, 2016

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

1.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.121 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kochi. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.813 of 2011 of Kochi Cusba Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court and the case was taken cognizance by the Assistant Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.517 of 2013.

¶37

2.The petitioner was the 8^th accused and he did not appear before court below and face the trial. The trial was proceeded as against others and as per Annexure A10 judgment dated 20.2.2015 they were extended the benefit of doubt and were acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 3236 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

“Code”). The case against the petitioner herein was split up and re-filed as S.C.No.121 of 2015.

¶41

3.The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking to quash the above proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case has been shattered in view of the acquittal of the co-accused.

¶42

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

5.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. It is evident from Annexure A10 judgment of the court below that none of the prosecuiton witnesses had deposed in favour of the prosecution case. They went to the extent of deposing that they were not present at the time of the incident. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after meticulous consideration of the evidence has concluded that the prosecution has failed to produce evidence to connect the

¶44

Crl.M.C. No. 3236 of 2016 -3-

¶45

accused with the crime. These observations, would definitely affect the very substratum of the prosecution case. As held by three Judge Bench of this Court in

¶46

Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT

¶47

552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶48

6.It is also submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid case the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 who are victims of the incident. Annexures A11 and A12 are the affidavits filed in this regard.

¶49

7.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 3236 of 2016

¶51

-4-

¶52

within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex

¶53

Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶54

In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings as against the petitioner in S.C.No.121 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court , Kochi are quashed.

¶55

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶56

kp/-29.6.16

Muhammed Anees v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anees 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtas Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

Vinoy A.C Vs State of Kerala