Allowed

Khalid @ Kalpud, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2022Crl.MC/535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued Single Bench Criminal Miscellaneous Order No. 535/2022 dismissing trial proceedings against the petitioner. Relying on acquittals of co-accused, hostile witnesses, and the complainant's withdrawal, the court quashed the case and exonerated the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 186 of 2022 are quashed and the petitioner stands exonerated.

Khalid @ Kalpud, Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 28TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 535 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO. 15/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 40/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

¶8

KASARAGOD

¶9

PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:

¶10

KHALID @ KALPUD, AGED 33 YEARS

¶11

S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT JAMBA HOUSE, KOTTA, POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ

¶12

RENJISH S. MENON

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 543.

¶16

SR.PP - SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl. M. C. NO. 535 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The 8^th accused in Crime No. 15 of 2009 of Adhur police

¶22

station has moved this Court for quashing the proceedings against him which was pending as L.P. No. 40 of 2020 on the ground of acquittal of the co-accused. That crime was registered on 19.01.2009 alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 506 (i) read with 149 of the IPC.

¶23

It is alleged that on 18.01.2009 at 22 hours accused persons, who are Muslim League activists formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, along with other 15 identifiable persons, carrying lethal weapons like iron stick, wooden stick, sword, etc, committed trespassed upon the sit out of the house of CW1, building No. MP8/133 at Masthikundu and intimidated the de facto complainant and committed acts of mischief by destroying the window panes, tiles of the house, and also an autorickshaw bearing registration

¶24

Crl. M. C. NO. 535 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

No. KL-14D-9228 parked on the courtyard and thus committed the above stated offences. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid and the case was originally taken on file as C.C. No. 397 of 2009. By Annexure-A3 judgment dated 3^rd October 2011 accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 were acquitted and the case against others was refiled as C.C. No. 2388 of 2011.

¶27

The learned counsel submits that subsequently other accused persons except A8 and A9 were also found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner was refiled as L.P. No. 40 of 2020. Now the case stands refiled as C.C. No. 186 of 2022. According to him in the light of the earlier judgments acquitting A1 to A7 and A10, there is no purpose in putting him to trial.

¶28

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶29

According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor the de facto complainant had given a further statement to the effect that the matter is settled and he does not want to pursue the

¶30

Crl. M. C. NO. 535 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

proceedings against the petitioner.

¶33

From Annexure-A3 judgment itself it is clear that the

¶34

de facto complainant and his father who were examined as

¶35

PWs 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case. The independent witnesses also turned hostile and thus the prosecution evidence was abruptly closed without examining the remaining witnesses. Now from the statement of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the de facto complainant had given a further statement that the matter is settled and he does not want to pursue the proceedings. It is an offence that happened way back on 18.01.2009. Now even the de facto complainant does not want to pursue the proceedings. In the circumstances, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings in C.C. No. 186 of 2022.

¶36

Moreover, in the statement of the de facto complainant in Annexure-A3 judgment he has stated that he cannot identify any of the assailants. In the circumstances, it is meaningless to

¶37

put the petitioner to trial. Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 186 of

¶38

Crl. M. C. NO. 535 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I,

¶41

Kasaragod are quashed and the petitioner shall stand exonerated.

¶42

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL

JUDGE

RMV/17/02/2022

6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 535/2022

¶48

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19.01.2009 IN
	CRIME NO.15/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
	28.02.2009 IN CRIME NO.15/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION.
Annexure A3	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	03.10.2011 IN CC NO.397/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED
	JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT I, KASARAGOD.
Annexure A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.03.2020 OF
	THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT
	OI, KASARAGOD DOWNLOADED THROUGH INTERNET FROM
	THE WEBSITE OF E COURTS.

¶49

TRUE COPY

¶50

P.A.TO JUDGE

Khalid @ Kalpud, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid @ Kalpud, v. the 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

Kishore P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Bahuleyan, Vs State of Kerala

Nitheesh P.S. Vs Baiju.T.S.

Midhun Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Omanakkuttan Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Peter Vs State of Kerala