Allowed

Abdul Latheef, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1698/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a Section 482 CrPC petition filed by the 5th accused in a case involving affray, held that since the trial court acquitted co-accused and found no evidence to prove guilt of the petitioner including the statement of the victim, quashing proceedings was justified. The court observed that no purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to face trial, stating the p

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Proceedings pursuant to the final report against the petitioner pending in L.P.No.5 of 2019 quashed.

Abdul Latheef, Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1698 of 2019

¶6

IN LPC NO.5/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KASARAGOD

¶7

CRIME NO.456/2012 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶9

ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ASSINAR, RESIDING AT NELLIKKAD, POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1698/2019

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

The petitioner herein is the accused in L.P.No.5 of 2019 on

¶20

the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. The aforesaid case was originated from Crime No.456 of 2012 registered at the Adhur Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶21

The investigation in the aforesaid crime was completed and final report was laid before the learned Magistrate. Out of the five persons named in the final report, the petitioner was the 5^th accused. As the petitioner did not appear before the court below, the case against him was split up and refiled as C.C. No.3695 of 2014.

¶22

The trial was proceeded with against the rest of the accused and by Annexure-A3 judgment dated 18.10.2014, the learned Magistrate found the accused Nos. 1 to 4 not guilty of the offence and they were acquitted of all charges.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

CRL.MC:1698/2019

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decisions of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336], Jalalu Rajan and Anr. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions as to whether any appeal has been preferred against the judgment rendered by the trial court. It is submitted that no appeal has been preferred till date.

¶28

I have gone through Annexure-A2 final report as well as Annexure-A3 judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the trial court evaluated the evidence adduced and came to the conclusion that no evidence was let in to prove that the accused had committed any of the offence. This was due to the fact that even the victim had stated that he was not aware as to who had committed the offence.

¶29

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

¶30

CRL.MC:1698/2019

¶31

¶32

co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶33

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 will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely bleak as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶34

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.5 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod are quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

CRL.MC:1698/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 456/2012 OF ADHUR POLICE. ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 456/2012 OF ADHUR POLICE. ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2014 IN C.C NO. 2228/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, KASARAGOD.

¶44

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL

Abdul Latheef, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef, v. the 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

Mejo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Rejitha R Vs the State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rehman, Vs State of Kerala

John Huston, Vs State of Kerala

Akwin, Vs State of Kerala