Allowed

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4077/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings against the petitioner after his co-accused were acquitted. The Court held that continued trial was futile and quashed the pending charge sheet and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner pending as S.C. No.1337 of 2015 are quashed.

Shihab 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 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4077 of 2016

¶6

SC 1656/2009,SC 377/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM DATED 22-08-2015 CRIME NO. 260/2009 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

¶9

SHIHAB, S/O.MUHAMMUD ISMAIL, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARANTAZHIKAM VEEDU, NEAR OSANA NAGAR, MUKKAM CHERRY, MAYYANNADU VILLAGE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJAD ALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 4077 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE-I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.260/2006 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT PENDING AS S.C. NO.1656/2009 AND S.C.NO.377/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

ANNEXURE-II THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.1656/2009 AND S.C.NO.377/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.4077 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2016

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

1.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No.1337 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam. This is a split up case from S.C.No.1656 of 2009 on the file of the court below wherein 6 persons were originally arrayed as the accused. The petitioner was the accused No.4.

¶31

Since the petitioner had absconded, the trial was proceeded against the rest of the accused and by Annexure-II judgment dated 22.8.2015, they were found not guilty and were acquitted of all charges. It is after the acquittal of the coaccused that this petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the very edifice of the prosecution case has been shattered.

¶32

Crl.M.C.4077/2016

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decisions of this Court in Moosa V Sub Inspector of Polic e [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336] , Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose in view of the acquittal of the co-accused.

¶36

6.I have gone through Annexure-I final report as well as Annexure-II judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court. It is borne out from Annexure-II that PW7, who was the injured witness, had turned adverse to the prosecution. He had deposed that the matter had been settled. The court below came to the conclusion that there was no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the offence.

¶37

7.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious

¶38

Crl.M.C.4077/2016

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C. No.1337 of 2015 on the file of the Principal

¶42

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam are quashed.

¶43

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶44

vps

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab 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

Joshy Vs Circle Inspector of Police,Pala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Vs State of Kerala

Bhamakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala