Allowed

Rashid Muhammed Kunju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2024Crl.MC/4753/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings initiated against accused parents following allegations of criminal trespass and assault arising from a relationship dispute, deeming the prosecution unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Annexures A1 and A2 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.228/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagappally, arose out of Crime No.1519 of 2021 of Karunagapally Poli

Rashid Muhammed Kunju Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4753 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.1519/2021 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam
CC NO.228/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,
KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶6

PETITIONERs/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶7

1RASHID MUHAMMED KUNJU
AGED 48 YEARS
THURUTHIYIL HOUSE,THODIYOOR NORTH.P.O
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN – 690523.

¶8

2SABEENA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O RASHID THURUTHIYIL HOUSE,THODIYOOR NORTH .P.O
KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM, PIN – 690523.

¶9

BY ADV K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.

¶12

2SEENA, AGED 40 YEARS
KANDATHIL THARAYIL VATTAPARAMBU THAZHAVA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN – 690523.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M.P.PRASANTH

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2024, THE COURT ON 18.07.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.4753/2023-D 2

¶15

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶16

================================

¶17

Crl.M.C No.4753 of 2023-D

¶18

================================ Dated this the 18 th day of July, 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under

¶21

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short)

¶22

by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1519 of 2021 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam, seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

(i) call for the records pertaining to Annexure-A1

¶24

FIR and Annexure-A2 Charge Crime No.1519 of 2021 on

¶25

the files of Karunagapally Police Station which is now pendkng as C.C No.228 of 2022 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Karunagapally and quash the same with all its consequential proceedings for the ends of

¶26

justice.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.4753/2023-D 3

¶28

(ii) Pass any order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

(iii) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court

¶30

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶31

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶32

learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused AnnexuresA1 and A2 and relevant documents. Although notice was served upon the defacto complainant, she did not appear.

¶33

3 . The prosecution case is that while the son of CW1 brought the daughter, aged 19 years, of accused Nos.1 and 2, after maintaining a love relationship, accused Nos.1 to 4, criminally trespassed upon the house of CW1, and assaulted CW1 at 10 a.m on 28.11.2021. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.4753/2023-D 4

¶35

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶36

the entire allegations are false. According to him, the daughter of the petitioners was forcefully taken away by the son of CW1 and normal resistance from the part of the petitioners, being the parents, has given the colour of serious offences. He also submitted that the entire allegations are false.

¶37

5. Though the learned Public Prosecutor attempted to justify the prosecution allegations, it is discernible that the allegations are part of normal resistance from the part of parents of a girl, aged 19 years, was studying for MBBS Course, started to reside along with the son of CW1. It is discernible that she stated before this Court while considering W.P(Crl.).No.423/2021, copy of the judgment in the said case is produced as Annexure-A4, that she went along with son of CW1, voluntarily. Going by the records, no serious allegations raised and no serious injuries also noted.

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.4753/2023-D 5

¶39

6. Having noticed the genesis of the case in the above line, it appears that the entire prosecution is unwarranted. Therefore, the same would require quashment.

¶40

7 . In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. Annexures A1 and A2 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.228/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagappally, arose out of Crime No.1519 of 2021 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, stand quashed.

¶41

Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.4753/2023-D 6

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4753/2023

¶46

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶47

`Annexure A1 & A1`	`CERTIFIED`	`COPY`	`OF THE FIR`		`& FIS IN`
`(a)`	`CRIME. NO` `KARUNAGAPP` `25.11.2021`	`. 15` `ALLY` `.`	`19/2021ON TH` `POLICE STA`	`E` `T`	`FILES OF` `ION DATED`
`Annexure A2`	`CERTIFIED` `C.C 228/2` `FIRST` `KARUNAGAPP`	`COPY` `022 O` `CLASS` `ALLY.`	`OF THE FINA` `N THE FILES` `MAGISTRAT`	`L` `O` `E`	`REPORT IN` `F JUDICIAL` `COURT,`
`Annexure A3`	`CERTIFIED` `THE DEFACT`	`COPY` `O COM`	`OF WOUND CE` `PLAINANT`	`RT`	`IFICATE OF`
`Annexure A4`	`CERTIFIED` `PETITION` `10.12.2021`	`COPY` `(CRL)` `.`	`OF THE JUDGM` `NO.423 OF`	`E`	`NT IN WRIT` `2023 DATED`

Rashid Muhammed Kunju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Muhammed Kunju 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

Somu Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Jaris E.O. Vs State of Kerala

Bins K.B. Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Komalavally Vs Syamala