Allowed

Murali C.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2017Crl.MC/929/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 143, 147, 448, 342 & 149 IPC. Considering prior acquittals of other accused and settlement, proceedings were quashed subject to payment of Rs.5,000 costs for delay.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C allowed; proceedings in CC.No.156/2011 against petitioner quashed subject to depositing Rs.5000 with KELSA, Ernakulam within one month.

Murali C.P 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 929 of 2017

¶6

CC 156/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KUNNAMKULAM CRIME NO. 60/2005 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

MURALI C.P., S/O.PUSHKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, CHEKKANVEEDU, THOYAKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶10

SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,

¶14

AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, FR.FRANCIS KURISSERY CMI, S/O.K.P.PYLOTH., AGED 67 YEARS.

¶15

3. FR.WALTER THELAPPILLY CMI, S/O.JOHN P.T., AGED 58 YEARS, FORMER DIRECTOR, AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 555.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 929 of 2017

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONE --------	R(S ----	)' ANNEXURES -------------
ANNEXURE	A1	: CERTIFIED NO.60/200	COP 5 O	Y OF FIR DATED 9/2/05 IN CRIME F PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE	A2	: CERTIFIED	COP	Y OF FINAL REPORT DTD.17.2.2005.
ANNEXURE	A3	: TRUE COPY NO.224/05	OF OF	JUDGMENT DATED 21/2/09 IN CC JFCM, KUNNAMKULAM.
ANNEXURE	A4	: TRUE COPY NO.201/09	OF OF	JUDGMENT DATED 27/1/11 IN CC JFCM, KUNNAMKULAM.
ANNEXURE	A5	: TRUE COPY BEFORE JFC	OF M,	DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN CC NO.224/05 KUNNAMKULAM.
ANNEXURE	A6	: TRUE COPY BEFORE JFC	OF M,	DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN CC NO.201/09 KUNNAMKULAM.
ANNEXURE	A7	: AFFIDAVIT	OF	2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-8-2016.
ANNEXURE	A8	: AFFIDAVIT	OF	3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-8-2016
RESPONDEN --------	T(S ----	)' ANNEXURE -----------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SUNIL THOMAS, J

CRL.M.C.NO.929 OF 2017

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The petitioner herein is originally arrayed as the third accused in Crime No.60/2005 of Peramangalam Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 448, 342, r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

The allegation of the prosecution was that, on 9.2.2005 at about 11.45 am, the accused along with others trespassed into the college and assaulted an officer. On the basis of the complaint laid, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. Some of the accused faced the trial in CC.No.224/2005. The court below by Annexure-A3 judgment, found that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the case against the accused and acquitted the accused, who had faced the trial. Thereafter, by Annexure-A3 judgment,

¶32

CRL.M.C.NO.929 OF 2017 2

¶33

the case against the remaining accused were split up and refiled as CC.No.201/2009. Two of the remaining accused appeared and contested the proceedings. They were acquitted by Annexure-A4 judgment. Subsequently the case against the petitioner herein along with another person originally arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, was split up and refiled as CC.No.156/2011. The petitioner herein now contends that in the light of Annexures-A3 and A4 judgments, the substratum of the case is broken and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. It is also submitted that in the meanwhile, the matter was settled with the second and third respondents evidenced by Annexures-A7 and A8 affidavits. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents also reiterated the settlement arrived at with reference to Annexures-A7 and A8 affidavits.

¶34

It is clear that in the light of Annexures-A3 and A4 judgments, coupled with Annexures-A7 and A8, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. Hence I am inclined to quash the proceedings in

¶35

CRL.M.C.NO.929 OF 2017

¶36

¶37

the light of above.

¶38

However, it is pertinent to note that the incident

¶39

happened in the year 2005. The matter has been pending before the trial court since then. At two stages the case was split up when few accused alone participated in the trial. It is resulted in the third splitting up of the case and even now one more accused has not come forward to contest the matter. Having regard to the above, it is clear that the petitioner herein had substantially contributed to the delay in the proceedings and kept away from the judicial proceedings for a long period. Having regard to this, I am inclined to impose cost on him for causing delay in the judicial proceedings quantified @Rs.5000/-.

¶40

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in CC.No.156/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam arising from Crime No.60/2005 of Peramangalam Police Station against the petitioner herein alone will stand quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum

¶41

¶42

CRL.M.C.NO.929 OF 2017

¶43

of Rs.5000/- with KELSA, Ernakulam within one month from today and file proof.

¶44

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

R.AV

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

Pa to Judge

Murali C.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali C.P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Junaid.N Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala