Allowed

Yousaf v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016Crl.MC/5635/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for assault against the petitioner. The court held that the acquittal of the petitioner's co-accused due to weak prosecution evidence shattered the case's substratum, rendering a new trial futile.

What did the court decide?

The complaint and all pending proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.24 of 2007, pursuant to Annexure-A, were quashed.

Yousaf Vs the 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 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5635 of 2016 ()

¶6

IN L.P.CASE NO.24/2007 IN C C NO.209/2006 OF THE JFCM-I, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 911/2005 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

YOUSAF S/O.ABOOBACKER, MANAKADAVATH HOUSE MARIYAD, NARUKARA AMSOM, MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031 FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.M.C.NO.5635 OF 2016

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.911/2005 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION.

¶18

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.438/2008 OF THE J.F.C.M.-I, MANJERI DATED 24.06.2009

¶19

RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

sm/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 5635 of 2016

¶26

- - - - Dated 14^th October, 2016

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

2.The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.438 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Manjeri. He along with 1^st accused were proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶31

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 6.12.2005 at 10.15a.m, the petitioner along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention had assaulted CWs 1 to 5 and caused them injuries.

¶32

4.The petitioner was not available for trial and the case was proceeded against the 1^st accused. By Annexure-B judgment dated 24.6.2009, the 1^st accused was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges. The said

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.5635 of 2016 -2-

¶34

judgment has become final.

¶35

5.It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused that this petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case as against the petitioner has been shattered.

¶36

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

7.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.

¶38

8.I have gone through the final report as well as the judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from Annexure-B judgment that the occurrence

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.5635 of 2016 -3-

¶40

witnesses cited by the prosecution did not support its case. Despite initiating coercive steps and proceeding under section 82 of the Code, the presence of the other witnesses could not be procured. The Court had concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as against the accused.

¶41

9.As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though

¶42

the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶43

10.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

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.5635 of 2016 -4-

¶45

remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be

¶46

justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶47

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as L.P.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class I, Manjeri are quashed.

¶48

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶49

kp/-15.10.16

Yousaf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yousaf v. the 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

Cheennattil Menaka Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Manikandan, C.NO.5721, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. Vs State of Kerala

Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Aboobaker P.K @ Abeek Vs State of Kerala

Shiju P.T. Vs State of Kerala