Anoop Hanifa Ramesh vs Faraz Javeed on 12 October, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anoop Hanifa Ramesh vs Faraz Javeed on 12 October, 2018

Bench: K.Abraham Mathew

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940

                   Crl.MC. No.6804 of 2018

AGAINST CC NO.119/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
                     COURT-II, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER:


           ANOOP HANIFA RAMESH
           AGED 38 YEARS
           S/O.HANIFA, ADICHIPARAMBU HOUSE, VADANATTU ROAD,
           POUTHAPADI, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.T. KABIL CHANDRAN
           SMT.B.T. PRASANNA


RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

   1       FARAZ JAVEED, AGED 39 YEARS
           S/O.JAVED HASHIM, 6D BAY PRIDE TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE,
           ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

   2       STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
           CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
           BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           PIN - 682 031.


           BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                         O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in CC No.119 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Crl.MC. No.6804 of 2018 2 Court-II, Ernakulam. He is said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) & 506(1) IPC and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act [for brevity, 'the KP Act']. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the facts of the case do not disclose any offence.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The final report was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate in 2013. The petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter he did not appear and the learned Magistrate recorded forfeiture of his bail bond. It is then the petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. The petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the Magistrate. He shall surrender before the Magistrate and submit his argument in that Court. It appears that Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted because the obscene words allegedly adhered by the petitioner are not mentioned in the FIR. An other offence with which he is charged falls under Crl.MC. No.6804 of 2018 3 Section 506 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence and the police should not have investigated into it. The offence under Section 118(d) of the KP Act has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted. But all these arguments should be advanced before the learned Magistrate, who may pass appropriate orders.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/-


                                        K. ABRAHAM MATHEW
                                              JUDGE
sp/15/10/18                                  //True Copy//

                                              P.A. To Judge

                               APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1               THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME

NO.1011/2012 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.119/2013 PENDING ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court