Allowed

Muhammed Noufal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2020Crl.MC/1581/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a PIL seeking to quash criminal proceedings. Since co-accused in the same split case were acquitted due to absolute lack of evidential support, the Court held the substratum of the prosecution case lost, quashing the trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C as futile.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; proceedings against petitioner in SC No.150/2017 quashed; accused discharged.

Muhammed Noufal Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1581 OF 2020(G)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 150/2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.353/2011 OF Tirurangadi Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMED NOUFAL AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

S/O. HUSSAIN, POTTARATH HOUSE, PALLIPADI, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE S.I. OF POLICE TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

¶16

3 ABOOBAKER AGED 49 YEARS

¶17

S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, KARIYATIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306.

¶18

SRI HRITHWIK C S (SR) - P P

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Crl.MC.No.1581 OF 2020(G)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 16th day of March 2020

¶24

Petitioner was the seventh accused in

¶25

Crime No.353/2011 of Tirurangadi Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶26

under Sections 143, 148, 448, 341, 324, 308 r/w

¶27

Section 149 of the IPC along with eight other accused.

¶28

The petitioner and 9^th accused were

¶29

absconding and the case against them was split up

¶30

and refiled as SC No.150/2017. Later the 9^th

¶31

accused has also produced and tried along with

¶32

other co-accused. They were all found not guilty

¶33

and acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C for the

¶34

reason that there was absolute lack of evidence.

¶35

The witnesses could not identify their assailants.

¶36

The petitioner's case is presently pending before

¶37

the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri as

¶38

SC No.150/2017. In view of the acquittal of the

¶39

Crl.MC.No.1581 OF 2020(G)

¶40

the co-accused in SC No.489/2012 vide at Annexure

¶41

A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost and proceeding with trial as against the petitioner would be sheer wastage of time and exercising futility.

¶42

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed, and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner in SC No.150/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, stands quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and the accused is

discharged.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Crl.MC.No.1581 OF 2020(G)

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.353/2011 ON THE FILES OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION DATED 10.7.2011.

¶53

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 3.7.2012 IN CRIME NO.353 OF 2011 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶54

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT II, MANJERI.

¶55

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.7.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, MANJERI.

¶56

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

PA TO JUDGE

Muhammed Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Noufal 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

Shibi, Vs State of Kerala

Biju P Vs State of Kerala

Thaha Vs State of Kerala

Akhil K.J. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala