Allowed

Ullikkovvall Rafeeque @ Muhammed Rafeeque v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2018Crl.MC/4757/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused in pending criminal trial, filed petition under CrPC to quash proceedings based on acquittal of co-accused in earlier judgment. Court accepted that further trial would serve no purpose and quashed the pending session case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. No. 94 of 2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Payannur are quashed.

Ullikkovvall Rafeeque @ Muhammed Rafeeque 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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4757 of 2018

¶6

IN SC 94/2014 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 96/2007 OF Payyannur Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :-

¶8

ULLIKKOVVALL RAFEEQUE @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 45 YEARS,RAMANTHALI AMSOM, VADAKKUMBAD CENTRE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. M.V. AMARESAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :-

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner was first accused in C.P. No. 105 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payannur In which there were eight accused. The petitioner and another accused were

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 4757 of 2018

¶18

¶19

absconding. The others were tried and acquitted in S.C.No.378 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Payannur. They were acquitted by Annexure A2 judgment. Later, the petitioner surrendered and his case is now pending as S.C.No.94 of 2014. The proceedings are sought to be quashed in the light of the acquittal of the co-accused.

¶20

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

3. I have perused the Annexure A2 judgment by which accused 3 to 8 were acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that the trial of the of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.

¶23

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.94 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Payannur are quashed.

¶24

Sd/K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶25

SMA

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 4757 of 2018

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-

¶30

ANNEXURE-1 :- TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET FILED BY PAYANNUR POLICE IN CRIME NO. 96/07.

¶31

ANNEXURE-2 :- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.398 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYANNUR DATED 10.01.2018 ALONG WITH DIARY EXTRACT.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

PA TO JUDGE

¶35

SMA

Ullikkovvall Rafeeque @ Muhammed Rafeeque v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ullikkovvall Rafeeque @ Muhammed Rafeeque 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

Tholoor Pisharikal Sree Karthiayani Temple Committee Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor.a.B. Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs the State of Kerala

Najjaf C.K Vs State of Kerala

Sajikumar K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sunish Prasad Vs State of Kerala