Kerala High Court
Hameedali Thangal vs State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2023
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1087 OF 2019
CRIME NO.111/2017 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CP 32/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA
PETITIONER/S:
SHAJAHAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA, MACHINGAL HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBA, MALAPURAM
DISTRICT
BY ADV C.LEENA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 THE SUB INSECPTOR OF POLICE
KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 388
3 SHAHNA
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. SYED HASHIM THANGAL K.V.K.,SYED MANZIL,
P.O.KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 001
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.RASINI
N.P.ASHA(K/1605/2003)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5492/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C Nos.1087/2019 and 5492/2019 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5492 OF 2019
CRIME NO.111/2017 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 100105/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
PETITIONER/S:
HAMEEDALI THANGAL
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE POOKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT DARASALAM HOUSE,
CHERUKULAMBA, VATTALLOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DT.
BY ADV C.LEENA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679335.
3 SHAHNA,
W/O.SYED HASHIM THANGAL.K.V.K., AGED 34, SYED MANZIL,
P.O., KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676507.
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.RASINI
N.P.ASHA(K/1605/2003)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1087/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C Nos.1087/2019 and 5492/2019 -3-
ORDER
These cases have been filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 in SC No.105/2019
on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court-I, Manjeri. The petitioners
along with other accused face allegations of having committed the offences
under Sections 341, 324, 354, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submits that
the incorporation of the petitioners as accused in the case is nothing but an
abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the first information statement
recorded from the de facto complainant there is absolutely no mention of the
names of the petitioners herein. It is submitted that while the de facto
complainant had specifically mentioned the names of some persons in her
first information statement the petitioners have been roped in at a later stage
on the basis of a later statement recorded from the de facto complainant. It is
submitted that it is clear that the petitioners have been roped in only to
ensure that they are also made accused in the case though they have
absolutely no connection with the incident.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing
for the de facto complainant would submit that mere delay in giving the
second statement cannot be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that this is settled by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Madan Razak v. State of Bihar and others; 2015
KHC 4799. Specific reference is made to paragraph 11 and 12 of the aforesaid
judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor also points out that in the first
information statement the de facto complainant has mentioned about 3
persons though specifically no names are stated. It is submitted that in such
circumstances if at all there is any merit in the contention taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, it is for the petitioners to seek discharge in
terms of the provisions contained in Section 227 Cr.P.C and there is no
ground made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the de facto complainant I am of the view that there is
considerable merit in the contention taken that if at all the petitioner has a
case that there is absolutely no material which would suggest the involvement
of the petitioners it is for the petitioners to seek discharge before the trial
court under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. I am of the view view that there is no
ground made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the
facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to permit the petitioner to
plea for discharge in absentia and through their counsel. Therefore these Crl.
M.Cs will stand disposed of directing if the petitioners file any application for
discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C, the matter shall be considered by the trial
court in accordance with law in absentia and without insisting upon the
presence of the petitioners.
Crl. MCs are disposed of as above.
I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the contentions raised by both sides. It is for the trial court to decide the
matter untrammeled by any observations contained in this order.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.5.2017 NO.III/2017 OF
KOLATHUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 6.8.2018
SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.111/2017 OF
KOLATHUR POLICE STATION.
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.5.2017
NO.111/2017 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 6.8.2018
SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.
111/2017 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION
