Allowed

M.S. Sajid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2017Crl.MC/5267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench quashed the final report in C.C. No. 1215/2015 against petitioners 1 and 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the trial had lost its substratum as witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the defacto complainant settled the matter, rendering further prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the final report and further proceedings in C.C. No. 1215/2015 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

M.S. Sajid Vs 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017/31ST SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5267 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC 1215/2015 of J.M.F.C.-II, HOSDRUG

¶7

CC 754/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I, HOSDRUG

¶8

CRIME NO. 203/2009 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶10

1. M.S. SAJID, AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.AHAMMEDKUNHI,KARUVALAM HOUSE, KARUVALAM,PADANNAKKADU,KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

¶11

2. MANSOOR.N.P,

¶12

AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.N.P.ABDULLA, KARAKKUNDU HOUSE, PADANNAKKADU,KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

¶13

3. ASHRAF, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR,KARAKKUND,PADANNAKKADU, KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶16

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

¶17

2. NABEESA, AGED 50 YEARS,W/O.ALI ABBA,R/AT KALATHIL HOUSE, KARUVALA,KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 5267 of 2017 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE HOSDURG POLICE	F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.203 OF 2009 BY STATION,KASARAGOD
ANNEXURE AII	A TRUE THE FINAL RE THE HOSDURG POLICE	PORT IN CRIME NO.203 OF 2009 BY STATION,KASARAGOD
ANNEXURE A111	A TRUE COPY OF THE C.C.754 OF 2009 OF	JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2012 IN JFCM-1,HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE AIV	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT.	AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶30

-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5267 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2017

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are accused in

¶34

C.C.No.1215/2015 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 149 IPC.

¶35

The above case arose out of Crime No.203/2009 of

¶36

Hosdurg Police Station. The petitioners were accused Nos.1 and 6 in the said crime. The petitioners filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶37

Heard.

¶38

Annexure-A3 is the copy of the judgment in C.C.754 of 2009. The court below acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 as per Annexure-A3 judgment under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. I have gone through Annexure A3 judgment. The defacto complainant and other two witnesses who were examined

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.5267 of 2017

¶40

-: 2 :-

¶41

before the court below did not support the prosecution case.

¶42

Having gone through Annexure-A3 judgment, I am satisfied that the substratum of the case had been lost in the trial. That apart, the defacto complainant filed affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and hence he has no further grievance against the petitioners. In view of the above reasons, no successful prosecution against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 can be sustained. Consequently, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is permitted to be continued. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash the final report and further proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C.No.1215/2015 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not pressing this Crl.M.C. as against the second petitioner, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed as against the second petitioner.

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.5267 of 2017

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed as against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and dismissed as against the second petitioner.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

STK

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

M.S. Sajid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Sajid 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

Mariyakutty Vs State of Kerala

Sreenij.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shanthi Roselin Vs State of Kerala

Asharaf Babu Vs Rasli

Sinoby Vs Sindhu Sinoby