Allowed

Hashim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a triable summons case. Citing coalition acquittals and evidence shortages, the Court held the substratum of the case was lost, rendering further trial futile.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in LP No.136 of 2012 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

Hashim 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6473 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST LP 136/2012 of J.F.C.M, KUNNAMANGALAM CRIME NO. 85/2006 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:

¶8

HASHIM S/O ASHRAF, POOLAKKAL VEEDU, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2. K.C.SHABEER S/O ISMAIL, AGED 38 YEARS, K.C.HOUSE, CHERUVALATH, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673571.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 6473 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.85 OF 2006 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 527 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM.

¶19

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.6473 of 2016

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 14th 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 is the accused in L.P. No.136 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.85 of 2006 of Kunnamangalam Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶31

3.After investigation, final report was laid arraying as many as 7 persons as the accused, the petitioner being the 1^st accused. The petitioner and the 6^th accused absconded and the case was proceeded against the rest of the accused. By Annexure-A2 judgment dated 24.3.2009, the

¶32

Crl.M.C.6473/2016 2

¶33

learned Magistrate have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and they were acquitted.

¶34

It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused, 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.

¶35

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

¶36

6.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.

¶37

7.I have gone through Annexure-A1 final report as well as

¶38

Crl.M.C.6473/2016

¶39

¶40

Annexure-A2 judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. From paragraph No. 4 of Annexure-A2 judgment, it is borne out that the prosecution had examined only one person as PW1 who is one of the occurrence witnesses. Though coercive measures were taken to secure the presence of the other witnesses, they did not turn up. The Court below, after evaluating the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the accused were entitled to acquittal under Section 232 of the Code.

¶41

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

¶42

9.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be

¶43

Crl.M.C.6473/2016

¶44

¶45

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.

¶46

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as L.P. No.136 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam are quashed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶49

vps

Hashim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashim 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

Salim Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Babu Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Haji Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karamana

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala