Kerala High Court
Abdul Khareem vs State Of Kerala on 14 December, 2011
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/24TH POUSHA 1934
Crl. MC. No. 112 of 2013 ()
--------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 958/2011 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
CC NO. 45/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PUNALUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------
ABDUL KHAREEM, AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. PEERUMUHAMMAD RAWTHER
RESIDING AT VAZHATHOPPIL HOUSE,
KUZHUTHURUTHY POST
ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI. T.M. RAMAN KARTHA
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THENMLA-691 308.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H JASMINE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. MC. No. 112 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY LICENSE ISSUED TO MR.A.SULFIKKAR BY THE
ARYANKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE A2 : A TRUE COPY FOTHE LICENSE ISSUED TO
MR.A.SULFIKKAR BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
ANCHAL UNDER THE KERALA VAT RULES.
ANEXURE A3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO
MR.A.SULFIKKR BY THE CIVIL SUPPLIES AUTHORITIES
UNDER THE KFDL ORDER.
ANNEXURE A4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE IN
CRIME NO.958/2011.
ANNEXURE A5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT REGRDING SEIZURE OF
THE RICE AND LORRY.
ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.32946/2011
DATED 14.12.2011.
ANNEXURE A7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS10-5794/11 DATED
9.1.2012.
ANNEUXRE A8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2011.
ANNEUXRE A9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2011.
ANNEUXRE A10 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2011.
ANNEXURE 11 : A TRUE COPY FO THE REPRESENTATION DTED 6.11.2012
WITH ACKNWOLEDGEMENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No.112 OF 2013
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2013.
O R D E R
The prayer herein is to quash Annexure A4 Final Report in C.C.No.45/2012 in Crime No.958/2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Punalur. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's son Sri.A.Sulfikar is a dealer in rice having licence under the Kerala Food Grain Dealers Licensing Order (KFDL). The said son is conducting business as M/s.Arshad Provision Store in the premises leased out to him by the petitioner.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as accused along with the owner and driver of a lorry alleging transportation of rice from the shop of the petitioner's son and accordingly a crime has been registered. Annexure A4 is a copy of the Final Report and Annexure A5 is a copy of the report regarding seizure of the rice and lorry.
Crl.M.C.No.112/2013 2
3. The plea of the petitioner is that his son, the licensee, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32946/2011 which was disposed of by Annexure A6 judgment. Thereafter the District Collector released the rice to the son as per Annexure A7 order. These documents are relied upon to show that the real person namely, the son had approached this Court and now the rice is also released to him and there is no justification for arraying the petitioner as accused in the criminal case. Complaining about the way in which the petitioner has been implicated in the crime, he has filed Annexures A8 to A11 petitions before various authorities.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on getting instructions submitted that there are four other cases registered against the petitioner and the crime numbers of them are 958/2011, 728/2012, 1129/12 and 1259/12. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is a dealer in rice and his licence was transferred to the son. It is also stated that security proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Crl.M.C.No.112/2013 3 Section 107 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner has been smuggling out ration rice.
5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is wrongly arrayed as an accused, at this state this Court will not be justified in concluding either way. The argument shows that the petitioner wants to rely upon certain documents as evidence to exonerate himself from the criminal prosecution. Evidently, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot take upon the task of appreciating the evidence or analysis of documentary evidence which are matters for consideration by the trial court. Therefore, only on limited grounds, this Court can exercise the power.
A reading of the Final Report shows that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused along with the owner of the vehicle and going by the plea of the learned Public Prosecutor that four other cases are also pending, it is not proper for this Court to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner will be free to seek Crl.M.C.No.112/2013 4 appropriate remedies before the court below where the case is pending.
This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observation.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp