Disposed

Soubin Shahir v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2022Crl.MC/3307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala closed the criminal miscellaneous case for quashing, directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to invoke powers under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and consider exemption from personal appearance. Internet search is required to verify the exact text of the citation used in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case is closed; the petitioner is directed to invoke Magistrate powers via counsel.

Soubin Shahir Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3307 OF 2020

¶4

CC 296/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶5

(E&O),ERNAKULAM

¶6

CRIME NO.1988/2018 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SOUBIN SHAHIR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.BABU SHAHIR, ALANGATTU HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017.

¶9

BY ADVS.
P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN
K.S.SUMITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION-682018.

¶13

3 THOMAS,

¶14

AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.NEPOLIAN, MERIMANGALATH, PADAPPAKKARA,
KUNDARA, KOLLAM RURAL, PIN-691503.

¶15

ADV. SREEJA V. -SR. P.P.
ADV.M.P. PRASHANTH – SR.P.P.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 3307 OF 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.296/2019 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The aforesaid Calendar Case arises from Crime No.1988/2018 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 21.11.2018 at 1.30. p.m., while the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant was discharging his duty as a security guard in an Apartment complex at Thevara, he stopped the car of the accused. Thereupon, being infuriated from the said act, the accused allegedly threatened, intimidated and uttered obscene words against the 3^rd respondent. Annexure A1 crime was registered in such circumstances and after completing the investigation, Annexure A2 Final Report was submitted. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2.

¶22

Heard Smt.K.S.Sumitha, learned counsel appearing for

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 3307 OF 2020

¶24

3

¶25

the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶26

The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not attracted against him as the materials produced along with Annexure 2 do not reveal the necessary ingredients for the same. After perusing the records and hearing the contentions from either side, I am of the view that the aforesaid contentions need not be considered at this stage of proceedings. This is particularly because those contentions are to be considered by the learned Magistrate after perusing the materials placed before him. Since the proceedings against the petitioner are summons case, the petitioner can very well approach the learned Magistrate to invoke the powers under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

The learned counsel, at this juncture, pointed out that he may be permitted to avail the exemption from personal appearance. In my view, the said prayer is also to be considered by the learned Magistrate. It is true that the petitioner has not so far appeared and

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 3307 OF 2020

¶30

had taken bail from the court. However, in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd ., [(2001)7 SCC 401], the honourable Supreme Court has observed that even the first appearance of the accused can be made through the counsel and personal exemption can be sought even without appearing in person before the court in summons case. In the light of the above, the learned Magistrate is well within his powers to entertain an application for personal exemption, even before the accused appears and seeks bail, mainly because this is a summons case.

¶31

In such circumstances, without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions and remedies, this Crl.M.C. is closed. It shall be open for the petitioner to submit an application to invoke the powers of the learned Magistrate under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., through his counsel, after seeking exemption from personal appearance.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶34

scs

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 3307 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3307/2020

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1FIR IN CRIME NO.1988/18 OF TOWN SOUTH
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E.O)
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2CHARGE CRIME NO.1988/18 OF TOWN SOUTH
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E.O)
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

Soubin Shahir v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soubin Shahir 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Noufel Vs the State of Kerala

Anees Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth.K.K Vs State of Kerala

The Circle Manager (Kerala) Vs State of Kerala

Subeesh @ Monu, Vs State of Kerala

Anzar Khan Vs State of Kerala