Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala

Rasheed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 02, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1102142

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rasheed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....who along with other accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 447, 323, 324 and 354 read with section 34 of ipc.3. after final report was laid, cognizance of the offence was taken and while a1 and a2 were put on trial, it is stated that the matter was compromised and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. the accused, who is the petitioner herein, was not available for crl.m.c. no. 14/2014 -2- trial and the case against him was split up and included in a l.p. register as l.p. 70 of 2010.4. in this petition, the petitioner has impleaded the defacto complainant and other injured in the case as respondents 2 and 3 who have entered appearance through a counsel and accept that the affidavits filed along with this petition are one sworn to by them and they stand by the statements contained therein.5. on going through the said affidavits, it is seen that the parties have settled all their differences and issues between them and no further grievance remains to be resolved. it is also pointed out that respondents 2 and 3 are disinterested in continuing the proceedings.6. in the light of the stand taken by the defacto complainant and the injured persons, it is felt that continuance of further proceedings will be only an exercise in futility. crl.m.c. no. 14/2014 -3- in the result, this petition is allowed. all further proceedings in l.p.no. 70 of 2010 pending before the judicial first class magistrate's court, ottappalam including the final report based on which cognizance was taken shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. sd/- p.bhavadasan judge ds

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE2D DAY OF JANUARY201412TH POUSHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 14 of 2014 () --------------------------------- (LP702010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, OTTAPPALAM ) PETITIONER:- -------------------- RASHEED,AGED38YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN, PADIPURACKAL VEEDU, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS / STATE AND DEFECTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OFPLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN- 682 031.

2. MADUMOHAN, S/O MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED40YEARS, RESIDING AT MOHAN BHAVANAM, MELOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN670501.

3. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED60YEARS, RESIDING AT MOHAN BHAVANAM, MELOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.679 501. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA. R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0201-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- KKS Crl.MC.No. 14 of 2014 () --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITONERS' ANNEXURES:- ---------------------------------------- ANNEXURE:1. TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO4311999OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE:2. TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.193/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT. OTTAPALAM. ANNEXURE :3. AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE2D RESPONDENT, ANNEXURE:4. AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL -------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE KKS P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No.14 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2014

ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to have all further proceedings in L.P.No. 70 of 2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam quashed.

2. The petitioner was the third accused in Crime No. 431 of 1999 of Ottapalam Police Station who along with other accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. After final report was laid, cognizance of the offence was taken and while A1 and A2 were put on trial, it is stated that the matter was compromised and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The accused, who is the petitioner herein, was not available for Crl.M.C. No. 14/2014 -2- trial and the case against him was split up and included in a L.P. Register as L.P. 70 of 2010.

4. In this petition, the petitioner has impleaded the defacto complainant and other injured in the case as respondents 2 and 3 who have entered appearance through a counsel and accept that the affidavits filed along with this petition are one sworn to by them and they stand by the statements contained therein.

5. On going through the said affidavits, it is seen that the parties have settled all their differences and issues between them and no further grievance remains to be resolved. It is also pointed out that respondents 2 and 3 are disinterested in continuing the proceedings.

6. In the light of the stand taken by the defacto complainant and the injured persons, it is felt that continuance of further proceedings will be only an exercise in futility. Crl.M.C. No. 14/2014 -3- In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in L.P.No. 70 of 2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam including the final report based on which cognizance was taken shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial