Allowed

P.H.Kabeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020Crl.MC/3666/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The case involved allegations of cheating regarding vehicle sales. Proceedings were split after four co-accused were acquitted, rendering the prosecution case against the petitioners untenable due to the withdrawal of key witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.

P.H.Kabeer 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 V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3666 OF 2020(G)

¶6

CC 85/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 P.H.KABEER AGED 54 YEARS S/O. HANEEFA, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM DAM (POST), VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN678 508

¶9

2 LATHEEF, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDUNNI, ADIYATTIL HOUSE, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 004

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 PROPRIETOR, MAHAVEER INVESTMENT, 47, KALATHI PILLAI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI, PIN-600 079

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.C. No.3666 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of October , 2020

¶21

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.320/CR/04 of CBCID Palakkad, originally registered at the Palakkad South Police Station alleging commission of offences under Section 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.85 of 2016, on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by

¶22

the proprietor of Mahaveer Investments. It was alleged that, after purchasing vehicles on hirer purchase from the complainant, the petitioners had cheated the financier by selling the vehicles using forged RC Books and other documents. Altogether there were 8 accused in the crime, of whom, accused Nos.3 to 8 faced trial before the

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.3666 of 2020

¶25

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, in

¶26

C.C.No.151 of 2010 and were acquitted as per Annexure-4 judgment, finding the prosecution to have miserably failed in bringing home the guilt

¶27

of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

¶28

Since the petitioners failed to participate in the trial, the case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.85 of 2016. The prayer in this

¶29

Crl.M.C is to quash the case pending against the petitioners in view of the acquittal of the other co-accused.

¶30

2. Heard Sri.P.K.Mohanan, learned Counsel for

¶31

the petitioner and Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶32

3. From a reading of Annexure-4 judgment, it

¶33

is seen that, the proprietor of Mahaveer Investments/de facto complainant had, during his examination, stated that the dispute was settled

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.3666 of 2020

¶36

in Adalath and he had no complaint against the accused persons. PW2, the manager of Mahaveer Investments had also deposed in similar manner. Other witnesses were given up by the prosecution on the premise that their examination will not improve the prosecution case. This resulted in the trial court finding the prosecution to have miserably failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

¶37

4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the findings in

¶38

Annexure-4 has shattered the substratum of the prosecution case. Hence, no purpose, other than waste of judicial time, will be served by compelling the petitioner's to face trial. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of court.

¶39

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. The

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.3666 of 2020

¶42

proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2016 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/14.10.2020

Crl.M.C. No.3666 of 2020

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE 1

¶51

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 12.02.2004, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 45/2004, INCLUDING THE PETITION DATED 11.02.2004 LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶52

ANNEXURE 2

¶53

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 21.12.2009 FILED BY THE CRIME BRANCH POLICE, PALAKKAD BEFORE CHIEFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , PALAKKAD.

¶54

ANNEXURE 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1 ALONG WITH THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY HIM DATED 15.03.2016 IN C.C. 151/2010 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD.

¶55

ANNEXURE 4

¶56

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2016 IN C.C. NO.151/2010 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , PALAKKAD.

P.H.Kabeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.H.Kabeer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeen Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Hanis S.K., Vs the State of Kerala

Raju Vs the State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Roshan S.R. Vs State of Kerala