[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ummer Farooque K. S vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2026
Crl.M.C.5620/2023
1
2026:KER:4284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5620 OF 2023
CRIME NO.313/2018 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
CC NO.52 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 UMMER FAROOQUE K. S.
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SHAFI,
RESIDING AT CHERANKAI HOUSE,
CHERANKAI KADAPPURAM, KUDLU VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
2 IYAS
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA,
RESIDING CHERANKAI KADAPPURAM,
KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121
3 SAHAD
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SATHAR,
RESIDING AT NASIYA MANZIL,
CHERANGAI KADAPPURAM, KUDLU VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.5620/2023
2
2026:KER:4284
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KASARAGOD POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
3 AISHA MOHAMMAD SHAREEF
AGED 44 YEARS, W/O MUHAMMED SHEREEF,
RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE, MARKET HILL,
KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
4 MUHAMMED SHEREEF
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O ADAM MUHAMMED,
RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE, MARKET HILL,
KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BREEZ M.S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.5620/2023
3
2026:KER:4284
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026
Accused persons 1 to 3 in CC. No.52/2019 of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, arising out of Crime No.313/2018 of Kasaragod
Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii),294(b), 354
r/w 149 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 16.4.2018, at about 6.30 p.m., the
accused persons 1 to 3 along with a juvenile conflicting with lAw and about 15
identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, abused the
defacto complainant and her husband in filthy words, the 1 st accused taken the
key of the scooter of the defacto complainant, hit her with the key and pulled
her down. When CW2 tried to intervene, the other accused persons voluntarily
caused hurt to him, intimidated to do away with him and thereby they are
alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners
produced the copy of the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kasaragod, acquitting the 2nd petitioner. Further according to the learned
counsel, now the entire dispute between the petitioners and the defacto
2026:KER:4284
complainant and her husband were settled. Therefore, she prayed for quashing
further proceeding against petitioners 1 and 3.
4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The defacto complainant and her husband filed affidavits stating that
the matter has been settled with the petitioners.
6. On a perusal of the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kasaragod dated 30.9.2024, it is revealed that in spite of issuing non-bailable
warrant and also steps under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the prosecution could not
procure the attendance of CWs 1 and 2, the victims in this case. The other
witnesses namely PWs 1 and 2 examined before the Magistrate, were not
occurrence witnesses. It was in the above context, the prosecution evidence
was closed and the learned Magistrate was forced to acquit the 2nd petitioner.
7. At the time of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor also submitted
that now, they are settled in UAE and hence the police could not contact them to
confirm the genuineness of the affidavits filed in support of this Crl.M.C.
8. The affidavits filed by the defacto complainant and her husband are
attested before the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai (UAE). In
the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the execution
of the above affidavits. Moreover, the 2nd accused was acquitted by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate for want of evidence. In the above circumstance, no useful
purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against petitioners 1 and 2
2026:KER:4284
and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed as against the petitioners 1 and
3.
9. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against
the petitioners 1 and 3 in CC. No.52/2019, now refiled as CC.No.291/2024,
pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, is quashed.
10. Since the 2nd petitioner was already acquitted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kasaragod, this Crl.M.C. as against the 2nd petitioner became
infructuous and accordingly, the Criminal M.C. as against the 2nd petitioner is
dismissed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
2026:KER:4284
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5620 OF 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
17/4/2018 IN CRIME NO.313/2018 OF
KASARAGOD POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 30/1/2019 IN CRIME NO. 313/2018 OF
KASARAGOD POLICE STATION
Annexure-A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13/05/2023 SWORN IN BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT
Annexure-A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29/05/2023 SWORN IN BY
THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.09.2024 IN C.C.NO.52/2019 ON THE FILES
OF LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S
COURT, KASARAGOD
