Allowed

Subair v. Roopesh

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3613/2016

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. The court held that the offence was personal, other co-accused were discharged, and parties had amicable reservations, making continuation futile under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending as L.P.No.10 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, are quashed.

Subair Vs Roopesh — 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 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3613 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------LP. NO.10/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.8:

¶8

SUBAIR, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 37 YEARS, VANIUYANTAVIDA HOUSE, CHEKKIADU AMSOM UMMATHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. ROOPESH, S/O. NANU, AGED 34 YEARS, THAGHYAMKUTTIYIL HOUSE, CHEKKIADU AMSOM, UMMATHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN - 673 101.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3613 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶19

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.302/2001 OF NADAPURAM POLICE. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC.47/2005 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA. ANNEXURE 3 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.3613 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in L.P.No. 10 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara . The said case has arisen from Crime No. 302 of 2001 of the Nadapuram Police Station. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 506(i), 307, 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC and section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶31

2.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as S.C.No.47 of 2005. The petitioner was not available for trial. While the

¶32

Crl.M.C.3613/2016 2

¶33

case was pending before the learned Sessions Court, an application was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor seeking sanction for withdrawal from prosecution. The de facto complainant was heard . He stated that he has no objection in consent being granted. On this basis, the learned Sessions Court as per Annexure-2 judgment dated 18.11.2006 discharged accused under section 321(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

3.It is submitted that after accused Nos.3, 4, 7 and 10 were discharged by Annexure-2 judgment, the parties have resolved the matter amicably. Annexure-3 is the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant wherein he has asserted that he has no objection in allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings.

¶35

4.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶36

5.It is borne out from Annexure-2 judgment that based on an application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor the

¶37

Crl.M.C.3613/2016 3

¶38

case was withdrawn. Further more, Annexure-3 affidavit of the de facto complainant would reveal that the matter

¶39

has been amicably resolved.

¶40

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases are reported against the petitioner.

¶41

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. Moreover the co accused has been discharged under section 321 (a) of the Code . In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. I am of the view that proceedings can justifiably be quashed invoking the

¶42

Crl.M.C.3613/2016

¶43

¶44

powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

¶45

8.In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as L.P.No.10 of 2011 on the file of the

¶46

Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, are quashed.

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶48

vps

Subair v. Roopesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subair v. Roopesh

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

Santhan v.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Prashob Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf @ Chott Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala