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.

Asmabi Vs. the State of Kerala

Asmabi vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 29, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1138948

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asmabi

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....2391 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated 29th april, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - order the petitioner is the second accused in c.c.no.406 of 2011 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, perinthalmanna which has been registered for offences under sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 209 and 201 r/w section 34 ipc. in the first investigation, there was only one accused and the petitioner was not an accused in it. but in the further investigation, the police filed a final report to the effect that she is also involved in the commission of the offences. thus there are two final reports before the learned magistrate. the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the proceedings in the lower court.2. heard both sides. crl.m.c.2391/14 2 3. in the first report filed before the learned magistrate under section 173(2) cr.p.c, the petitioner was not an accused and in the supplementary report filed under section 173(8) cr.p.c, she has been made an accused. the submission of the learned counsel is that the second report is invalid and illegal and it should be quashed.4. when there are two reports before the court, it is for the court which conducts the enquiry to decide whether to take cognizance or not to take cognizance on the basis of the materials collected in the first investigation as well as in the further investigation. both are invalid reports. this court cannot quash the proceedings merely because there are two reports before the lower court. the discretion is with the learned magistrate to decide as to what course he shall take. this court under section crl.m.c.2391/14 3 482 cr.p.c cannot place any fetter on his exercising such discretion. in the result, this crl.m.c is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the lower court and plead for a discharge under section 227 cr.p.c., if so advised. sd/- k. abraham mathew, judge mrcs //true copy//

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE29H DAY OF APRIL20149TH VAISAKHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2391 of 2014 --------------------------- CC4062011 of J.M.F.C.-II, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 7/2011 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ASMABI W/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY T.K, 'HANSAM', VANIYAMBALAM.P.O. WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CR.NO.7/2011 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION).

2. C.R.GEORGE S/O.JOHN, CHENKAVILAVEETTIL HOUSE, V/660 ANAND NAGAR, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-43. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2904-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2391 of 2014 --------------------------- APPENDIX ANNEXURES ---------------- ANNEXURE I- A COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.7 OF 2011 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED291.1996. ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE IV- TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF MRS.FRANGRANCE BHAMINI. ANNEXURE V- TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED3110.2005. ANNEXURE VI- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.6358/2005 IN SRO WANDOOR. ANNEXURE VII- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.279/2006 IN SRO WANDOOR. ANNEXURE VIII- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE IX- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE X- TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SRO WANDOOR. ANNEXURE XI- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SEND BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE XII- TRUE COPY OF THE NEW FINAL REPORT IN THE C.C.NO.406 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM-II, PERINTHALMANNA. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.M.C.No. 2391 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 29th April, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER

The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.406 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna which has been registered for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 209 and 201 r/w Section 34 IPC. In the first investigation, there was only one accused and the petitioner was not an accused in it. But in the further investigation, the police filed a final report to the effect that she is also involved in the commission of the offences. Thus there are two final reports before the learned Magistrate. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the proceedings in the lower Court.

2. Heard both sides. Crl.M.C.2391/14 2 3. In the first report filed before the learned Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, the petitioner was not an accused and in the supplementary report filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, she has been made an accused. The submission of the learned counsel is that the second report is invalid and illegal and it should be quashed.

4. When there are two reports before the Court, it is for the Court which conducts the enquiry to decide whether to take cognizance or not to take cognizance on the basis of the materials collected in the first investigation as well as in the further investigation. Both are invalid reports. This Court cannot quash the proceedings merely because there are two reports before the lower Court. The discretion is with the learned Magistrate to decide as to what course he shall take. This Court under Section Crl.M.C.2391/14 3 482 Cr.P.C cannot place any fetter on his exercising such discretion. In the result, this Crl.M.C is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the lower Court and plead for a discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., if so advised. SD/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial