Allowed

Muneer Khan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023Crl.MC/1709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against the accused. The court held that continued trial would be futile following the acquittal of co-accused based on lack of evidence regarding the competence of search and definition of prostitution.

What did the court decide?

The final report and all further pending proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 956/2016 are quashed.

Muneer Khan, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
FRIDAY,THE9THDAYOFJUNE2023/19THJYAISHTA,1945
CRL.MCNO.1709OF2020

¶4

AGAINST CC NO.956/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶6

MUNEERKHAN,
AGED43YEARS
S/O.SUBERKUTTY,SUDEERMANZIL,
NEELIKULAM,KULASHEKHARAPURAMVILLAGE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAMDISTRICT.

¶7

BYADVS.
BINUGEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

STATEOFKERALA,
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031.

¶10

SRIMPPRASHANTHPP

¶11

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
09.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.M.C No.1709 of 2020

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

¶16

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.956/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 , 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956.

¶17

The prosecution allegation is that the 8th accused is the owner and the 7th accused is the manager of Zeroke Tourist Home, Karunagappally. It is alleged that the accused Nos.7 and 8 rented out room Nos. 107, 108 and 113 to accused Nos.1 to 6 for the purpose of conducting prostitution. In pursuance to the same, the accused Nos.1 to 6 are alleged to have used the premises as a brothel and committed prostitution.

¶18

It appears from the records that the final report was laid before the learned Magistrate arraying eight persons as the accused. The petitioner herein was arrayed as the 5th accused. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 failed to appear before the learned Magistrate and the case against them was split up and refiled. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 8th accused is

¶19

Crl.M.C No.1709 of 2020

¶20

¶21

stated to have passed away. The learned magistrate proceeded against accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 and by Annexure-3 judgment dated 22.4.2008 in C.C.No.1070/2001, they were acquitted of all charges under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused that this petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case against the petitioner has been shattered.

¶23

Sri. Binu George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police¹ [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336], Jalalu Rajan and Anr v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] and it was urged that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner herein would serve no purpose.

¶24

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

I have gone through the Annexure-A2 final report and A3

¶26

judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the search conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police was not in accordance with law as he was not competent

¶27

to conduct the search. It was further held that the prosecution had failed to

¶28

¶29

Crl.M.C No.1709 of 2020

¶30

¶31

prove that the accused committed prostitution as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. It was further held that there was no material to attract Section 3,

¶32

5 and 7 of the Act. It was on these considered findings that the learned Magistrate had concluded that the accused, who faced trial, were entitled to acquittal under Section 248(1) of the Code. The petitioner is similarly placed as the accused who faced trial. As held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court

¶33

in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost, is an exception to the above rule.

¶34

I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner herein to undergo the ordeal of a trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time, which can be used for more productive work. Furthermore, no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that this Court will be well justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code and in quashing the proceedings.

¶35

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure- A2 final report in Crime

¶36

Crl.M.C No.1709 of 2020

¶37

¶38

No.90 of 2001 of the Karunagappally Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner as C.C.No.956/2016 on the file of the Judicial

¶39

First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, are quashed.

¶40

Sd/ -

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

¶43

Crl.M.C No.1709 of 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1709/2020

¶46

PETITIONERANNEXURES:

¶47

ANNEXUREA1CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRNO.90/2001OF
KARUNAGAPPALLYPOLICESTATION.
ANNEXUREA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFFINALREPORTINCRIME
NO.90/2001OFKARUNAGAPPALLYPOLICESTATION.
ANNEXUREA3CERTIFIEDCOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED22/04/2008IN
CCNO.1070/2001OFJUDICIALFIRSTCLASS
MAGISTRATE,KARUNAGAPPALLY.

Muneer Khan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer Khan, 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

Joy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Biju P.R. Vs Bijo James

Afsal Vs Abdul Rahman

Livin Vs State of Kerala

Ninan John Vs State of Kerala