Dismissed

Mufeesh Khan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2017Crl.MC/2250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refused to quash the final report regarding theft offenses. While noting arguments about sample collection irregularities, the Court held that probative value must be decided at the trial and disposed of the petition by permitting an application for vehicle release.

What did the court decide?

Application to release vehicle may be filed for appropriate orders on merit by the trial court. The final report was not quashed.

Mufeesh Khan Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/26TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2250 of 2017 () --------------------------CC 614/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO.542/2014 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶7

1. MUFEESH KHAN, S/O MUHAMMED, KANICHADIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHERUVADI (P.O.), KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2. JAMSHEED THACHAMPATTA, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY, THACHAMPATTA HOUSE, MANASSERY (P.O.), KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

3. NAUSHAD KOLAKKADAN @ MONU, S/O MOOSA HAJI, CHERUVADI (P.O.), MAVOOR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2250 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)'	ANNEXURES
--------------	----------
ANNEXURE 1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.542/2017 BEFORE THE VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 19.11.2014.
ANNEXURE 2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33027/2014 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 9.12.2014.
ANNEXURE 3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.D.O DATED 4.5.2015.
ANNEXURE 4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 7.5.2015.
ANNEXURE 5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 14.5.2015.
ANNEXURE 6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CC 614/2015 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT MALAPPURAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	ANNEXURES ----------
ANNEXURE R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF A1
ANNEXURE R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE TEST RESULT FROM THE LAB, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19.12.2014
ANNEXURE R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD.12.05.2015 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM
ANNEXURE R1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYTICAL REPORT NO.198/15- 16 DATED 1.09.2015

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶22

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2250 of 2017

¶23

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2017

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶26

2.Petitioners are the accused in CC No.614 of 2016 on the

¶27

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20, 21 & 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The prayer is to quash Annexure 6 final report. It is submitted that the sample of the goods allegedly carried in the vehicle was taken by the investigating officer in the absence of the competent authority and the report of its examination cannot be relied on. It is further submitted that the RDO also took sample and that was in the presence of an authorized officer.

¶28

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶29

..2..

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2250 of 2017

¶31

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

4.The probative value of the reports with regard to the two samples is a matter to be decided at the trial. I find no reason to quash the final report. The petitioner concerned may file an application to release the vehicle. It is made clear that if the goods carried in the vehicle is subject matter of the offences as alleged, the goods carried cannot be released.

¶33

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above directions. If the petitioner concerned files an application for release of the vehicle, the trial court may pass appropriate orders on merit for its release.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶36

bka/-

Mufeesh Khan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mufeesh Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.P.Alikoya Vs State of Kerala

Lenin Jithendra Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Abraam Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Naik Vs State of Kerala

Renjith v R Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Arjunan M Vs State of Kerala