Dismissed

Saddam Hussain v. Gopidas

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020Crl.MC/2458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition as infructuous. The report showed the accused were acquitted in 2017, yet the petition remained pending for four years without intimation. Continued presence on the file without representation was deemed misuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous case is dismissed as infructuous due to prolonged delay and misuse of court process after acquittal.

Saddam Hussain Vs Gopidas — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2458 OF 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.69/2014 OF THRITHALA EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SADDAM HUSSAIN

¶9

AGED 25 YEARS

¶10

S/O MOHAMMED, HANEEFA, PALLITHERUVU, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKADU.

¶11

2 SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 26 YEARS

¶12

S/O MUTHU RAWTHER, CHALLAPATHA, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶13

3 VIGNESH AGED 20 YEARS S/O BALAN, PARAKUZHI, MENON PARA, PALAKKADU.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1 GOPIDAS

¶17

AGED 31 YEARS S/O VELAKUTTY, PAZHANIYAR PALAYAM, PALLITHERUVU, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶18

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED B Y THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF KERALA – 678 001

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN VARGHESE R2 BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No.2458 OF 2014

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Crl.M.C. is pending before this Court

¶25

from 2014 onwards. More than six years elapsed. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioners and counsel remained absent and nobody represented the matter. Last time, this Court had directed the trial court to submit a report. Accordingly, a report was received stating that the accused was acquitted after trial on 24.07.2017. This would show that the

¶26

present case had become infructuous even on 24.07.2017. But it was not brought to the

¶27

notice of this Court for a long period of more

¶28

or less four years. This kind of misuse of

¶29

process of the court cannot be tolerated. The absence of the counsel for the petitioners would show what is behind it. The matter was dragged for a long period of more or less four years without intimating the acquittal of the accused. In short, an infructuous proceedings allowed to be continued by the petitioners before this

¶30

Crl.MC.No.2458 OF 2014

¶31

¶32

Court for a long period of four years. Even

¶33

today, it was not intimated, but the counsel and

¶34

the petitioners remained absent. Nobody even

¶35

represented the matter.

¶36

Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed as

infructuous.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Crl.MC.No.2458 OF 2014

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶46

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 69/2014 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

PA TO JUDGE

Saddam Hussain v. Gopidas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussain v. Gopidas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Linto V.R Vs State of Kerala

Cyriac Varghese @ Sam Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jimmy George, Vs State of Kerala

Lathika Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs State of Kerala