Allowed

Aslam v. K.M.Bijeesh

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6876/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner, an accused in a dispute-born criminal case. The petitioner is an accused no.3 who absconded. The High Court allows the petition, quashing the pending trial based on the acquittal of co-accused, the failure of prosecution to prove its case, and the complainant's settlement.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner pending as S.C. No.631 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara are quashed.

Aslam Vs K.M.Bijeesh — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6876 of 2016 ()

¶6

S.C. NO.631/2015 OF ASST. SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA CRIME NO. 799/2009 OF VATAGARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶8

ASLAM S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 32 YEARS KINATTINGANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEAR CHEENAM VEEDU JUMA MASJID, PUTHUPPANAM P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BINU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. K.M.BIJEESH S/O.BASKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS KALLUMULACHEDUTH HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM P.O., VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN: 673 105.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 031.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 6876 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES

¶18

----------------------ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 799/2009 OF VARTAKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC. 253/10 ON THE FILE OF ASST. SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA

¶19

ANNEXURE 3 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.6876 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No.631 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara. The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.799 of 2009 of Vatakara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶31

2.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate arraying three persons as the accused, the petitioner being the 2^nd accused. The petitioner had absconded and hence the case was proceed with against accused Nos.1 and 3. By Annexure-2 judgment dated 9.4.2015 in S.C.No.253 of 2010, they were extended the benefit of doubt and were acquitted of

Crl.M.C.6876/2016

all charges.

3.Pursuant to the acquittal of the co-accused, the dispute between the petitioner as well as the 1^st respondent was settled.

¶36

4.It is in the aforesaid fact scenario that this petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

¶37

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 1^st respondent and 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 the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

¶39

Crl.M.C.6876/2016

¶40

¶41

7.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-II judgment that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. The court below had extended the benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 1 and 3. Further more, by Annexure-III affidavit, the 1^st respondent/ de facto complainant has expressed that he is not desirous of prosecuting the petitioner any further as he has no grievance against him.

¶42

8.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. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶43

9.In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final

¶44

Crl.M.C.6876/2016

¶45

¶46

report and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as S.C. No.631 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara are quashed.

¶47

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶48

vps

Aslam v. K.M.Bijeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam v. K.M.Bijeesh

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

Salam P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Vysakh Vs State of Kerala

Eby Alphonse Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Badusha Vs State of Kerala

Prabhasony Vs State of Kerala

Emili Devasia Vs State of Kerala