Allowed

Shuhaib P. @ Mandan Shuhaib, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2021Crl.MC/4918/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of public property damage and violence. The court quashed the case following the acquittal of other accused, finding the substratum of the case lost.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings against petitioners in S.C.No.425 of 2020 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod.

Shuhaib P. @ Mandan Shuhaib, Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 425/2020 OF SUB COURT /

¶9

COMMERCIAL COURT, KASARAGOD, KASARGOD

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶11

1 SHUHAIB P. @ MANDAN SHUHAIB, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, R/AT PUTHIYAKANDAM, NEAR RIFAYI MASJID, KALLURAVI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶12

2 KABEER K.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ASAINAR (LATE), PITTAPPANAVI HOUSE, KALLURAVI, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶15

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

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO 1074 OF 2011), HOSUDRG TALUK-671 315.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 20 in S.C.No.425 of 2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod. Case was registered as Crime No.1074 of 2011 at Hosdurg Police Station against petitioners and 18 others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 341, 283, 332, 435, 307 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage of Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984. The prosecution case is that on 11.10.2011 at 19 hours near Ayyappa Bhajana Madam in Kalluravi of Kanhangad Village, the accused obstructed the public way by setting fire to tyres on the road and disobeyed the orders of police.

¶23

After completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid persons. As the petitioners herein were absconding, the case was split up and 13 accused persons were tried in S.C.No.38 of 2016 by Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod. After the trial of 13 accused who stood trial, they were acquitted as per Annexure-AIII judgment dated 14.09.2020.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

¶25

¶26

The prayer sought for by the petitioners is that, consequent to the acquittal of the aforesaid accused persons, the substratum of the case is lost. No fruitful purpose would be served by compelling the petitioner herein to undergo the trial and it also amounts to an abuse of process. Hence they pray for quashing the entire proceedings against them by invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard Sri.Arunkumar A., the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in Annexure-AIII judgment, after evaluating the entire materials produced before the Court, a categorical finding was entered into by the Court to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused persons and to establish the link between the accused persons with the crime. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought my attention to the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.4899 of 2020 dated 24.11.2020, wherein

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

¶30

¶31

this Court quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.2, 4 and 7 in the aforesaid crime after holding that substratum of the case is lost consequent to Annexure-AIII judgment.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the same, as the finding in Annexure-AIII were pertaining to the identity of the accused persons who have faced trial.

¶33

It is a fact that after detailed examination of the evidence on record, the trial court came to a categorical finding as to the innocence of 13 accused persons who alleged to have played major role in the offence alleged. This Court has already arrived at a specific finding as per judgment in Crl.M.C.No.4899 of 2020 to the effect that consequent to the findings entered into by the Trial Court, with regard to the other accused, the substratum of the case is lost and hence, the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked for quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2, 4 and 7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, it is only appropriate that the proceedings against the petitioners herein are also to be quashed. This is particularly necessary, as the allegation

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

¶35

¶36

against petitioners here are also similar in nature and all the said persons are on the same footing, which warrants same treatment.

¶37

Accordingly, I allow this Crl.M.C. and all further proceedings in S.C.No.425 of 2020 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod shall hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/22.11.21

Crl.M.C.No.4918/2020

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4918/2020

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶45

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO 1074 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE 11 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1074 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A111 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2020 IN SC NO 38 OF 2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT KASARAGOD

Shuhaib P. @ Mandan Shuhaib, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shuhaib P. @ Mandan Shuhaib, 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

Saji K. Babu Vs Shaheer Ali A.K

Rajesh K Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

Josy Paul Akkara Vs the Manager

K.G.Sathi Ratnam Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Radhakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Vs Anayara Shaji