Allowed

Siddque v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against four accused persons whose co-accused were previously acquitted. Finding the prosecution case flimsy and noting an amicable resolution between the parties, the Court held that continuing the trial was a futile exercise and granted relief under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pending as C.C. No. 3048 of 2015 against the petitioners were quashed.

Siddque 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4447 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 19/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR DATED CRIME NO. 1269/2010 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 4 TO 7:

¶8

SIDDQUE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O HAMEED, CHALIL THODIYIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMKARA DESOM, MEENADU DESOM, MEENADU P.O, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM PIN (A4)

¶9

MUNEER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O BASHEER, MUNEER MANZIL, MEENADU, MEENADU P.O, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM PIN (A5)

¶10

RAFI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADAR, PUNNAVEEDU, MEENADU DESOM, MEENADU P.O, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM PIN (A6)

¶11

SHINE AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ALIYARU KUNJU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MEENADU P.O, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM PIN (A7)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, PIN 691 574.

¶16

AJITH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O CHANDRA BABU, PADMAVILASOM VEEDU, CHIRACKARA VILLAGE, CHIRACKARATHAZHAM CHERY, KOLLAM (DISTRICT) PIN 691 578.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (KOLLAM) R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CONTD...

¶20

:2:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 4447 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 1269/2010 OF PARIPPALLY P.S. ANNEXURE 2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF JFMC (TEMPORARY), PARAVOOR IN CC 19/2014 ANNEXURE 3 AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-07-2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 4447 of 2016

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.4 to 7 in C.C.

¶33

No. 3048 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Temporary), Paravoor. The aforesaid case has its origin in Crime No. 1269 of 2010 of the Parippally Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294 (b), 341, 447 and 506 (ii) of the IPC. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant in the said case.

¶34

2.The aforesaid crime was investigated and final report was laid before Jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken cognizance of as C.C. No. 3048 of 2015 by the court below.

¶35

The 1^st accused was no more and the petitioners herein

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 4447 of 2016

¶37

¶38

who are arrayed as accused Nos. 4 to 7 in the final report. The petitioners had absconded and the case against them was split up and re-filed. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were proceeded with and by Annexure-2 judgment dated 05.12.2015, they were acquitted of all charges.

¶39

3.After the acquittal of the co accused, the dispute between the petitioners herein and the 3^rd respondent/de facto complainant was amicably resolved. It is in the above backdrop that this petition is filed seeking to quash proceedings.

¶40

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶41

5.I have gone through Annexure 1 final report as well as Annexure 2 judgment of the acquittal rendered by the court below. It is evident from Annexure-2 that the injured witness, who was examined as PW1, did not

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 4447 of 2016

¶43

¶44

support the prosecution case. After evaluating the entire materials, the court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed in proving its case. Furthermore, the 3^rd respondent has filed an affidavit before this Court wherein it is stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶45

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 .

¶46

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

¶47

Crl.M.C. No. 4447 of 2016

¶48

¶49

petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 3048 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Temporay) Paravoor are quashed .

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶52

SKS

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

Siddque v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddque 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

Benny Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Kalesh Vs State of Kerala