Allowed

Sadique v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against an accused absent during trial, where co-accused were acquitted due to hostile witnesses and settlement, imposing a deposit condition.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings quashed against the petitioner on the condition of depositing Rs. 2,000 within one month and filing a report.

Sadique Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 4460 of 2018

¶5

SC 152/2014 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 1066/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2

¶7

SADIQUE, S/O.MUSTHAFA HAJI, "T.P.HOUSE", MURIYANAVI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 315.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶11

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA V.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.MC.No. 4460 of 2018

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶16

ANNEXURE AI: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1066 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶17

ANNEXURE AII: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1066 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

ANNEXURE AIII: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.152/14 DATED 3.3.2016.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 4460 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2018

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Arraying the petitioner herein as the second accused, Crime No.1066 of 2011 was registered by the Hosdurg Police

¶28

for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 354, 436, 153 A r/w Section 149 IPC.

¶29

It was alleged by the prosecution that on 11.10.2011, the petitioner along with the other accused at 11.30 a.m, formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into a hotel run by CW1. They committed assault and attempted to outrage her modesty. Damages were caused to the articles in the hotel.

¶30

Pursuant to the investigation conducted, final report

¶31

was laid and the matter was pending as C.P.No.67 of 2013.

¶32

Since the petitioner herein could not be arrested, the case against the remaining accused were committed and was taken cognizance as S.C.No.152 of 2014. Before the court below, all

¶33

Crl.M.C.No. 4460 of 2018

¶34

-2-

¶35

the accused except the petitioner herein appeared and faced

¶36

the trial. They were acquitted by Annexure A III judgment.

¶37

The petitioner herein has approached this Court contending that he could not participate in the proceedings due to reasons beyond his control and in the light of the acquittal of the co-accused evidenced by Annexure AIII judgment, the substratum of the case should be deemed as broken and the benefit should enure to him also. He sought to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

It seems that the court below considered the evidence of PW1 to PW5, who were examined before the court

¶39

below. All the above witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and hence, the remaining accused were given up. Holding that the dispute was settled and due to lack of the evidence, the court below acquitted all the accused who had faced the trial.

¶40

In the light of the evidence adduced before the court below and the settlement reported therein, I feel that no

¶41

Crl.M.C.No. 4460 of 2018

¶42

-3-

¶43

purpose will be served even if the petitioner herein is directed to face the trial.

¶44

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that

¶45

the above judgment has become final in the absence of any challenge. Hence, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings.

¶46

It is pertinent to note that the crime is in the year 2011. Since the petitioner herein remained absent in all the proceedings, the case was split up against the petitioner herein and is now pending as S.C.No.292 of 2018. Considering the fact that he has contributed largely for the delay in the judicial proceedings, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., subject to payment of cost only.

¶47

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. will stand allowed and all further proceedings quashed as against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.292 of 2018 on condition that he deposits a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) with the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Kerala,

¶48

Crl.M.C.No. 4460 of 2018

¶49

-4-

¶50

Ernakulam, within one month from today and file report before

¶51

this Court.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

¶54

Scl/23.07.2018

Sadique v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadique 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

Babu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Anzil Vs State of Kerala

Prasannachandran Vs K.N. Vijayamma

Rajeev Thomas Vs Sheeja Antony

Binoy Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala