Allowed

Ismail a v. Naduppattil Aboobacker

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5497/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that proceedings against the petitioner should be terminated as other co-accused were acquitted for lack of evidence, the dispute was amicably resolved, and trial would be a futile exercise wasting judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed; the final report and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1102 of 2014 are quashed.

Ismail a Vs Naduppattil Aboobacker — Writ and Judicial Review | 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 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5497 of 2016 ()

¶6

IN CC 1102/2014 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 141/2006 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 12.:

¶9

1. ISMAIL A AGED 38 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN K.P., ANJUMMANTAKATH (H), PALAKKODE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. NADUPPATTIL ABOOBACKER, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.UMMER, NADUPPATTIL (H) PALAKKODE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 308

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5497 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE

¶19

ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 141/2006 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE III : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT JFCM COURT, PAYYANUR IN C.C NO. 449/2006.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: N I L

¶21

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

//TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 5497 of 2016

¶28

- - - - Dated 1^st November, 2016

¶29

- - - - ORDER

¶30

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶31

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.1102 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Payyannur. This is a split up case from C.C.No.449 of 2006 on the file of the said court in which 20 persons were arrayed as accused. The petitioner was the 12^th accused in the said case. The petitioner had absconded and the case against him was split up and re-filed as above.

¶32

3.The case was proceeded with as against accused 1 to 5, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 and as per judgment dated 17.1.2009, they were found not guilty and acquitted of all charges. Thereafter, the dispute between the petitioner

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.5497 of 2016 -2-

¶34

and de facto complainant/1^st respondent herein was amicably resolved. Annexure-II is the affidavit sworn to by the 1^st respondent wherein he states that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶35

4.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] submits that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

¶36

5.I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the materials on record as well as Annexure-III judgment. By the said judgment, other accused were acquitted holding that there is no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the offence. Furthermore, Annexure-II affidavit would reveal that the disputes have been

¶37

Crl.M.C. No.5497 of 2016 -3-

¶38

amicably resolved.

¶39

6.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 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-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.1102 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Payyannur are quashed.

¶41

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶42

kp/4.11.16

Ismail a v. Naduppattil Aboobacker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail a v. Naduppattil Aboobacker

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

Sujith .v Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Dinesh Vs the State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Yacob . M.O Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suresh Mathew Vs Baby Mathew