Mahamood M.P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12355 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

   FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1943

                  Crl.MC.No.1155 OF 2021(D)

 AGAINST SC 60/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
                    COURT - I, KASARAGOD

   CRIME NO.822/2013 OF Hosdurg Police Station , Kasargod


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            MAHAMOOD M.P.,
            AGED 43 YEARS
            S/O.KUNHAMMAD, M.P.MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM,
            BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

            BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

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

      2     ABDUL HAMEED P.
            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O. SULAIMAN, R/AT. DARUL MADANI HOUSE, BALLA
            KADAPPURAM, P.O, KANHANGAD, BALLA VILLAGE,
            HOSDURG TALUK - 671151.

            R2 BY ADV. VIPIN T JOSE

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI C.S HRITHWIK PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.1155/2021                 2

                                ORDER

Dated this the 7th day of May 2021

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.60/2017. The petitioner

together with one Asif were the accused in Crime No.822/2013 of

Hosdurg Police Station. Following the investigation of the crime, the

case was taken on file by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I,

Kasaragod as S.C.No.851/2014. Following the trial of that case, by

Annexure-A3 judgment dated 18.11.2017, the aforesaid Asif was

acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the

allegations. It is stated that the petitioner could not face trial with the

other accused since he was not in station on account of his employment

elsewhere. It is further submitted that, at any rate, the dispute between

the petitioner and the de facto complainant has been settled as is evident

from Annexure-A-IV affidavit. The petitioner had earlier approached

this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.1764/2018, which was withdrawn with

liberty on 14.6.2018. A reference to Annexure-A-V order in

Crl.M.C.No.1764/2018 shows that permission to withdraw the Crl.M.C.

reserving the liberty to file afresh petition was on a condition that the

petitioner deposits the amount covered by the bond executed by him

when he was released on bail in the matter. With reference to

Annexure-A-VI dated 13.11.2020, it is submitted that the condition

imposed by this Court in Annexure-A-V has been complied with.

2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

S.C.No.60/2017, which is the number assigned to the case following

splitting up of the case against the petitioner, who was the 2 nd accused in

S.C.No.851/2014.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Kerala.

4. A reference to Annexure-A-III judgment in S.C.No.851/2014

shows that the entire substratum of the prosecution case has been lost

and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is unlikely

to result in a conviction. In the trial of S.C.No.851/2014, PW.1, the

de facto complainant had deposed that he had not witnessed the incident

and that he had mentioned the name of the accused only on a suspicion.

5. Further a reference to the pleadings in this case and the

materials placed on record show that the issues have been settled

between the parties. No useful purpose will be served by allowing the

criminal proceedings to continue. No public interest is involved in the

matter. Therefore, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and

another [2012(4) KLT 108] and Parbatbhai Aahir and others vs.

State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641], this is a case where

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked

in order to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and

noticing the findings in Annexure-A-III judgment, I find that the entire

substratum of the prosecution case is lost, in view of the definite stand of

PW.1 that he named the accused only on suspicion. Further, it is seen

that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the de facto

complainant. Thus going by the judgments of the Supreme Court

referred to above and considering the nature of the offence alleged, the

proceedings can be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. S.C.No.60/2017 on the file

of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod will stand

quashed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE acd

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.

822 OF 2013 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.

ANNEXURE AII A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.

822 OF 2013 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.

ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2017 IN S.C. NO. 851 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-I, KASARAGOD.

ANNEXURE AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE AV            A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
                       14.06.2018 IN CRL.M.C NO.1764 OF 2018.

ANNEXURE AVI           A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
                       NO.490/2020/V.O.BALLA ISSUED BY THE
                       VILLAGE OFFICER BALLA, DATED
                       13.11.2020.