Allowed

K. Muthaleeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016Crl.MC/6857/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the 5th accused in a case involving unlawful assembly and affray. The Court held that since co-accused were acquitted due to adverse testimony of the sole prosecution witness, no purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to undergo trial.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A final report and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1218 of 2014 were quashed.

K. Muthaleeb Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6857 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1218/2014 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR DATED CRIME NO. 720/2003 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

K. MUTHALEEB

¶9

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O KHADARIK, KARUTHAMAVINTAKATH, KUKKAKADATH KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, KOYAPARA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION).

¶13

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. M.R.DHANIL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CONTD...

¶16

:2:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 6857 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE B: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2007. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 6857 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

~~~~~~~~

¶29

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

¶30

of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

2.The petitioner herein is the 5^th accused in C.C.No.1218 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur. The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.720 of 2003 of Payyannur Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

¶32

323, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶33

3.The investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur. As many as six persons were arrayed as the accused in the final report and the petitioner was the 5^th accused. The petitioner absconded and was not available for trial and the

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 6857 of 2016 2

¶35

case against accused Nos. 3 and 6 were proceeded with and by Annexure-B judgment dated 31.10.2007 in C.C. No 162 of 2004, they were found not guilty of the offence and were acquitted of all charges.

¶36

4.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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 6857 of 2016

¶40

¶41

the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose. It is further submitted that the case against the 1^st accused in the aforesaid crime was quashed by this Court by order dated 18.11.2016 in Crl.M.C.No.6866 of 2016.

¶42

7.I have gone through Annexure-A final report as well as Annexure-B judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from paragraph No.6 of the judgment that the only witness who was examined to prove the case of the prosecution turned adverse. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the circumstances, came to conclusion that there were absolutely no materials to establish the case against the accused. After having gone through Annexure-B judgment which was rendered in the year 2007 and taking note of the fact that it has become final, I am of the considered view that no purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 6857 of 2016 4

¶44

undergo the ordeal of a trial.

¶45

8.As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa (supra), 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.

¶46

9.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.

¶47

Crl.M.C. No. 6857 of 2016

¶48

¶49

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.1218 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur, are

¶50

quashed.

¶51

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶52

SKS

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. Muthaleeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Muthaleeb 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

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu John Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Ramlath Vs Saithalavi

Inspector of Police, CBI Scb Vs Prakasan @ Vettukuttan

Roopak Vs State of Kerala