Allowed

Muhammed Sheheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2023Crl.MC/5458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against petitioner. Court held that since co-accused were acquitted due to witness hostility and prosecution failure, continuing prosecution serves no purpose and wastes judicial time.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 900/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara are quashed.

Muhammed Sheheer Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 900/2013 OF SUB

¶9

COURT,KOTTARAKKARA

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

MUHAMMED SHEHEER

¶12

S/O.SAINALABUDHEEN, KUTTIKATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR MUSLIM MOSQUE, MARKET WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

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

¶16

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

MAYA M.N PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶21

¶22

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶23

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 5458 of 2014

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2023

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The above Crl.M.C. is filed to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner which is numbered as SC No.900/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara. The petitioner was the 2^nd accused in Sessions Case No. 185/2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. He was not able to appear before the trial court and hence, his case was split up and the case against accused Nos. 1 and 3 is proceeded. The trial court acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per Annexure-II judgment. In the light of Annexure-III judgment, this Crl.M.C. is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner also because no purpose will be served in prosecuting the petitioner.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

This Court perused Annexure-III judgment in which

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶30

¶31

accused Nos. 1 and 3 were acquitted. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

¶32

6. “Point Nos1 to 7: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence, these points are considered togetherPW1is the defacto-complainant who had allegedly given Ext.P1 FIS. Though he deposed that he signed Ext.P1 and would say that he was injured in an incident that took place during festival at Pakidi temple compound a few years ago. He does not know the persons who have beaten up him. He stated that it was at about 10 PM when the incident took place. There was a scuffle among the people who gathered for the festival and he went there to pacify them During the course of that scuffle, he got injured. He submitted that none of the accused have beaten up him or have done anything against him. AGP was permitted to cross-examine the witness. Even then, PW1 refused to support the prosecution story. He totally denied the statements in Ext.P1 against the accused. So the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the prosecution

¶33

7. PW2, 3 and 4 are the other injured in the alleged incident. All of them turned hostile to the prosecution and denied that they were injured by the act of the accused. They totally denied the statements allegedly given by them to the investigating officer and have submitted that none of the accused caused any injury on them.

¶34

8. PWs 5 and 6 were cited to prove the occurrence. They also turned hostile to the prosecution and denied of having seen the occurrence.

¶35

9. PW8 deposed that while he was working as Head

¶36

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶38

Constable at Punalur Police station on 11.02.2005, he went to the Taluk Hospital, Punalur and recorded Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1 and noted the injuries of PWs 1 to 4 as Exts.P1 (a), P1(b),P1(c) and P1(d)

¶39

10. PW9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered Ext.P2 FIR on the basis of Ext.P1, prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar, recovered M.Q.1 series cricket stumps, conducted the investigation and filed the final report. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence stated anything in support of the prosecution case. The prosecution therefore miserably failed in proving the charge levelled against the accused. Accused are therefore only to be acquitted. I order accordingly. Point Nos. 1 to 7 answered accordingly. In the result, accused Nos. 1, 3 to 8 are acquitted of the offence alleged under Sec143147, 148, 294(b),427, 324, 308 r/w Sec149 1.BC under Sec.235 Cr.PC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. Case against accusedNo.2 will be split up and refiled on getting orders from the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Kollam.”

¶40

In the light of the above finding, the proceedings against the petitioner will be a sheer waste of judicial time. I am of the opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner need not be continued.

¶41

Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 900/2013 on the file of

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶43

¶44

the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara (Crime No.78/2005 of Punalur Police Station) are quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

SKS

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5458/2014

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

ANNEXURE NO.I- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.87/2005 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION.

¶54

ANNEXURE NO.II- A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.185/2006 ON THE FILE OF ASST: SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTTARAKARA.

¶55

ANNEXURE NO.III- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN S.C.185/2006.

¶56

ANNEXURE NO.IV- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN S.C.185/2006.

¶57

ANNEXURE NO.V- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSIION OF PW3 IN S.C.185/2006.

¶58

ANNEXURE NO.IV- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN S.C. 185/2006.

Muhammed Sheheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sheheer 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

M/S. Atlas Ply Boards Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu K Vs State of Kerala

Jithesh Vs State of Kerala

The Kalpetta Zone Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Superintendent of Customs Vs Thondantavida Kaniyan Kandi Faiz

Muhammad Shafi Vs State of Kerala