Dismissed

Ashraf, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019Crl.MC/3707/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case was filed for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners sought withdrawal of the application with liberty to move the court below for discharge. The High Court allowed the withdrawal and set the matter at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; Petitioners granted liberty to move the court below for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Ashraf, Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3707 OF 2019(C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 302/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.62/2018 OF Kalikavu Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 ASHRAF, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 ABDUKUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 HAMZAKUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4 RAZAK, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

5 UMMER KUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY

¶15

Crl.MC.No.3707 OF 2019(C)

¶16

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶18

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 ( IN CRIME NO. 62/2018 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶19

2 ISUDHEEN , AGED 33 YEARS S/O. KUNJIMOHAMMED,, MAVUNGAL HOUSE, KARUTHENI, VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 525

¶20

R1 SRI E C BINEESH-PP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.3707 OF 2019(C)

¶23

¶24

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶25

Crl.M.C No.3707 of 2019

¶26

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2019

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing

¶29

Annexure-A6 final report filed against the petitioners in Crime No. 62/2018 of Kalikavu police station and the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet in the case S.C No. 302/2019 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri.

¶30

The petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in the aforesaid case.

¶31

The allegation against them is that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 304 read with 34 IPC.

¶32

As per the final report filed, it is alleged that the petitioners beat and hit the deceased Kunhi Muhammed and when he fell down, the fourth accused kicked on his abdomen. This incident took place on 28.06.2018. Kunhi Muhammed died on 30.06.2018, when he was undergoing treatment in the hospital.

¶33

The postmortem report reveals the cause of death of Kunhi Muhammed as follows:

¶34

“The postmortem findings are consistent with death due to complications of raised intracranial tension as a result of ischemic infarct of the brain following

¶35

Crl.MC.No.3707 OF 2019(C)

¶36

¶37

myocardial infarction.”

¶38

The contention of the petitioners is that the cause of death was ischemic infarct of the brain following myocardial infarction and in the aforesaid situation, the death has got no nexus with any of the acts allegedly committed by them.

¶39

It is stated that the case is now pending before the court below for taking steps under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C but no charge has yet been framed against the petitioners.

¶40

After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the court below by filing application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶41

Consequently, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners are at liberty to move the court below by filing appropriate application for discharge. If any such application is filed, the court below shall consider it as expeditiously as possible.

¶42

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶43

lsn

Ashraf, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shandas Vs State of Kerala

Rasik.C Vs Abdul Samad.E.K.P

Sneha Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Reena Johnson Vs Yohannan Mathai

Renjith Rajan Vs State of Kerala