Allowed

Veeran Haji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings instituted for offenses under Section 341 and 506 IPC. The court held that the investigation was illegal as the statements did not disclose a cognizable offense of wrongful restraint.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 567 of 2017 on the file of the JFCM Court, Manjeri are quashed.

Veeran Haji Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4199 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 567/2017 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI CRIME NO. 86/2017 OF AREAKODE POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2:

¶9

1 VEERAN HAJI,

¶10

S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, PUZHAKALTHODI VEDIYODU HOUSE, MAITHRA P.O, URANGATTIRI VILLAGE, ERNADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 ASHRAF,

¶12

S/O. VEERAN HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, PUZHAKALTHODI VEDIYODU

¶13

HOUSE, MAITHRA P.O, URANGATTERI VILLAGE, ERANADU TALUK,

¶14

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV.SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶19

ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶20

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶21

AREAKKODE POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 86/2017.

¶22

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA (SENIOR)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 4199 of 2018 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 86/2017 OF AREAKKODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.86/2017 OF AREAKKODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT MR. HYDRU BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR.HYDRU BEFORE POLICE DATED 16.6.2017. ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.82/2017 OF AREAKKODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.5.2015 IN WPC NO. 20907/2015. ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2018 IN WPC NO.7831/2016. ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 4.4.2016 IN WPC NO. 13018/2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------

¶28

// TRUE COPY //

¶29

PA TO JUDGE

¶30

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶31

Crl.M.C. NO.4199 of 2018

¶32

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2018

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.567 of 2017 on the file of the JFCM Court, Manjeri. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 341 and 506 IPC. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the FI Statement does not disclose any cognizable offence and the investigation was illegal.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

I have perused Annexure-3 FI Statement given by the victim.

¶38

There is no allegation that the petitioners wrongfully restrained the victim. So FI Statement does not disclose commission of the offence under Section 341 Cr.P.C. It discloses only commission of the offence under Section 506 IPC. That is non cognizable. So the registration of the case and investigation conducted by the SHO are illegal. Realizing the illegality in it the SHO recorded the statement of the victim once more. A copy of it is marked Annexure-4. Even that statement does not disclose the offence under Section 341 IPC. What the victim said to the police is that he was sitting in front of a 'cultural centre', when the

¶39

Crl.M.C. NO.4199 of 2018 2

¶40

petitioners came there wrongfully restrained and threatened him. It defies common sense that the petitioners wrongfully restrained the victim, who was sitting at a place. In any view of the matter, the investigation was illegal. The proceedings are vitiated. The final report is liable to be set aside.

¶41

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.567 of 2017 on the file of the JFCM Court, Manjeri are quashed.

¶42

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶43

Veeran Haji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeran Haji 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

Francis Vs Rocky

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Basheer Vs Sulaiman K.K

Moideenkunhi Vs State of Kerala