Kerala High Court
Abdul Razak vs The State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/14TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3617 of 2009 ( )
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 241/2003 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
----------------------------------------------
1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MUHAMMED NOORUKANNU,
SEAMAN, KAMBARPETTAVILAKOM, VENGANUR,
VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. PODIKANNU, S/O.PICHAKANNU,
PANAYARAKUZHI VEEDU, VIZHINJAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.K.R.RIJA.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. ABDUL MANAF KABEER, MALATHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
VIZHINJAM DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3617 of 2009 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NUMBERED AS CMP 1463/00.
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.035675.
ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE REFER CHARGE NO.59/02.
ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OFHE CMP NO.6246/2002.
ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FRAMING CHARGE DATED
24-09-2009.
ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1.
ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2.
ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3.
ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4.
.
ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW5.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
amk
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.3617 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2014.
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C No.241/2003 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Neyyattinkara. The case has a chequered history. Originally, a complaint was filed as C.M.P No.1463/2000 before the same court which was referred to for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. First complaint is marked as Annexure A. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a refer charge, which is marked as Annexure C. Thereafter, a protest complaint is filed by the defacto complainant, which is marked as Annexure D.
2. Brief facts, relevant for our purpose, are as follows :
The defacto complainant is a fisher man by occupation. There was a communal riot at Vizhinjam in 1995. Lot of persons suffered property loss in the riot. The Matsyafed had chartered a scheme for benefiting the affected persons whereby they decided Crl.M.C No.3617 of 2009 2 to give boats and nets to the riot hit persons. Grievance of the petitioners is that the accused persons, who were allegedly the members of Vizhinjam Jama-athe, committed breach of trust and cheating and the benefits were appropriated by them unlawfully.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after a full fledged investigation, the police filed a refer report finding that the allegations in the original complaint were false. Subsequently, a protest complaint was filed with the verbatim reproduction. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter. It is seen from the records that the case has advanced to a stage of enquiry under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Witnesses have been examined and charge has been framed against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that going by the evidence adduced, it cannot be stated that the Crl.M.C No.3617 of 2009 3 case put forward by the defacto complainant is false or improbable. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on a reading of the complaint and on going through the evidence adduced by the witnesses on the side of the complainant, especially PW's 4 and 5, it would show that the case propounded by the defacto complainant is completely baseless. Having gone through the records and after hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C shall be used to marshal or appreciate the oral evidence to arrive at a conclusion that there is no reason to find that the entire case in the complaint is absolutely baseless. However, I do not wish to make any opinion regarding the probity and acceptability of the oral evidence adduced. I find that this is not a fit case to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the entire proceedings at this stage.
Crl.M.C No.3617 of 2009 4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter being very old, pending from 2003 onwards, there may be a direction to expedite the trial. This submission is well founded. Therefore, the matter is disposed with the following directions :
In the result, Crl.M.C is dismissed. However it is made clear that if the petitioners make an application for personal exemption showing sufficient reasons, the court below shall consider the matter favorably, if law permits. The matter being of the year 2003, the court below shall dispose of the entire case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD,
amk JUDGE.