Allowed

Hareesan @ Hareeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 May 2018Crl.MC/2772/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the Kerala High Court quashed long-pending criminal proceedings against the first accused. The court held that acquittal of co-accused and victim affidavits rendered the prosecution case baseless, making further trial a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings under L.P.No.89 of 2016 in C.P.No.45 of 2014 and Annexure-A2 final report quashed.

Hareesan @ Hareeshkumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 25TH VAISAKHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2772 of 2018

¶6

(CRIME NO. 567/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD)

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

HAREESAN @ HAREESHKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, (A1), S/O. RAGHAVAN, BEVOORI, UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

MUHAMMED ASKAR P.A.,

¶15

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, R/AT UDMA PADINHARE,

¶16

UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315.

¶17

ASHRAF THAYATH,

¶18

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KHALID, THAYATH HOUSE, UDMA PADINHARE,

¶19

UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315.

¶20

AFSAL P.M.,

¶21

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AMBIKA NAGAR, UDMA

¶22

PADINHARE, UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315.

¶23

R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.DOMINY

¶24

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. HRITHWIK

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 2772 of 2018 ()

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.567/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.

¶30

ANNEXURE A2- CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.56/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3- CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/08/2017 IN S.C.NO.53/2015. ANNEXURE A4- AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5- AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6- AFFIDAVIT OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2772 of 2018

¶37

Dated this the 15^th day of May, 2018

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

1.The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in L.P.No.89 of 2016 in C.P.No.45 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg. The aforesaid case arose from Crime No. 567 of 2011 of Bekal Police Station involving offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 326, 308, 153A r/w Section 149 of the IPC. In the final report, seven persons were arrayed as the accused and the petitioner was the 1^st accused. The accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6 were not available for trial and hence the case was included in the list of Long Pending Cases as L.P.No.89 of 2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II. By Annexure-A3 judgment dated 8.8.2017, the court below has acquitted the accused Nos.2,

¶40

3,5 and 7.

¶41

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2772 of 2018 2

¶43

as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel referring to AnnexureA3 judgment that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a futile exercise as none of the witnesses had supported the prosecution case. There were no incriminating materials against the accused and it was in the said circumstances that the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 were acquitted. It is further submitted that the victims have also sworn to Annexure-A4 to A6 affidavits wherein they have stated that they have no subsisting grievance.

¶45

4.After perusing the records and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced, I am of the view that the findings and observations in Annexure-A3 will definitely affect the substratum of the prosecution case. As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), 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, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.2772 of 2018 3

¶47

the above rule.

¶48

5.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 the only purpose that will be served is to gnaw into precious time during which more productive work can be done by the court below. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote owing to the acquittal of the co accused and in view of Annexure-A4 to A6 affidavits. In the facts and circumstances, it is felt that this Court will be well justified in invoking powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings.

¶49

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as L.P.No.89 of 2016 in C.P.No.45 of 2014 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg will stand quashed.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶52

ps/15/5/2018

¶53

//true copy//

¶54

P.S to Judge

Hareesan @ Hareeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareesan @ Hareeshkumar 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

Praveen R.B. Vs State of Kerala

Johnson George Vs the State of Kerala

Byju.C Vs the State of Kerala

Shafeeq.P Vs State of Kerala

Biju Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan @ Sastheri Valsalam Vs State of Kerala