Allowed

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4021/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition, noting a settlement between parties and lack of prosecution evidence, and quashed the criminal cases pending against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners as C.C. No.505 of 2004 will stand quashed.

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi 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 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4021 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 505/2004 of J.F.C.M,PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 68/1999 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 4 & 5:

¶8

1. CHAPPAN PUTHIYA PURAYIL MOOSAN KUNHI, S/O PAKKER HAJI, AGED 36 YEARS, EZHOME, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. CHAPPAN THOTTATHIL ASSEEN, S/O HAMZA, AGED 39 YEARS, EZHOME, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

*1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031. 2. ABDULLA, S/O ABOOBACKER, AGED 67 YEARS, EZHOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 334. 3. SULAIMAN, S/O KUNHAMMED,AGED 70 YEARS, EZHOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 334. 4. MOIDEEN, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, EZHOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 334. 5.RASHEED, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, KUTTIYERI, TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT-670114 (ADDL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDE DATED 25.11.2016 IN CRL.M.APPL. NO.8928/2016) R2-R4,R5 ADDL. BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 4021 of 2016 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶17

-------------- ANNEXURE 1	--------- TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 68/99 REGISTERED BY PAYANGADI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C 560/99 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR DATED 20-07-2004.
ANNEXURE 3	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C 657/07, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR DATED 16-07-2008
ANNEXURE 4	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-09-2015 SWORN TO BY 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE 5	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-09-2015 SWORN TO BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 6	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-09-2015 SWORN TO BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 7	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RASHEED DATED 23.8.2016
ANNEXURE 8	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.443/2004 DATED 28.3.2012 PASSED BY COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.4021 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein, who are the accused Nos. 4 and 5 in C.C. No.505 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur.

¶29

2.The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.68 of 1999 of Payangadi Police Station. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court and the case was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C. No.560 of 1999. As many as 5 persons were arrayed in the final report, the petitioners being accused Nos.4 and 5. The petitioners along with the 2^nd accused had absconded and hence the case against accused Nos.1 and 3 were proceeded with. By Annexure-2 judgment dated

¶30

Crl.M.C.4021/2016

¶31

¶32

20.7.2004, accused Nos.1 and 3 were found guilty and were convicted. The case against accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 were split up and re-filed. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent surrendered before the learned Magistrate and he was tried in C.C. No.657 of 2007 and by Annexure-3 judgment dated 16.7.2008, he was found not guilty and was acquitted. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 3 filed Crl.Appeal No. 443 of 2004 before the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. By Annexure-8 judgment dated 28.3.2012, the appellate court overturned the finding of the trial court and they were found not guilty of the offences and they were acquitted.

¶33

3.After the acquittal of the co-accused, it appears that the disputes between the petitioners and the de facto complainant were settled.

¶34

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

5.The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 referring to the affidavits sworn to by them submits

¶36

Crl.M.C.4021/2016

¶37

¶38

that they have no further grievance as against the petitioners herein.

¶39

6.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioners to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶40

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.505 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur will stand quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶43

vps

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi 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

Pramod Kumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Siva Prasad Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Farhad Kasim Rahman Vs State of Kerala