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.

Latheef Vs. State of Kerala

Latheef vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 04, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167085

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

Latheef

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure quashing the prosecution on the ground that proceeding with the prosecution will not serve any purpose in the above circumstances. annexure-iii judgment shows that the other accused obtained a judgment of acquittal when all the material witnesses turned hostile during trial. the de facto complainant, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident, is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding. crl.m.c no.4078 of 2014 2 he has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint. the offences involved in the case are under sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 365 and 307 of indian penal code.2. in gian singh v. state of punjab [2012 (4) klt108sc ] and in narinder singh & others v. state of punjab and another[ 2014 (2) klj252, the hon'ble supreme court has held that in cases where the parties have come to terms amicably, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, the the high court can act under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure even in cases involving no-compoundable offences. here, i am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute. in view of the settlement made out of court, nobody will support the prosecution, and the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case. i find that this is a fit case where the powers under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure can be exercised. crl.m.c no.4078 of 2014 3 in the result, this petition is allowed. the prosecution against the petitioners in s.c488of 2008 before the learned assistant sessions court, thodupuzha will stand quashed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. sd/- p.ubaid, ma judge. /true copy/ p.s to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER201413TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 4078 of 2014 () --------------------------- AGAINST SC4882008 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO. 653/2001 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND2D ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- 1. LATHEEF S/O. MOYIL HAJI, ELATHICKAL HOUSE, NALLOOR KARA NENMINI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. SYRAJ @ MUHAMMED SALIH, S/O. HAMSA, KARAKKATTU VEETTIL, THYKKADU VILLAGE CHELAKKADU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DY. S.P. OF POLICE, CBCID PALAKKAD THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. JOSHI.K.K. S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KAKUCHIRA PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE THATTAKUZHA.P.O., THODUPUZHA VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0411-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4078 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- ANNEXURE.I. A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 653 OF 2001 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE .II. A TRUE CPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT/PW2 IN S.C. NO. 293 OF2003 ANNEXURE .III. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED1411-2008 IN S.C. 293 OF 2003 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA. ANNEXURE IV: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED0111.2014 SIGNED BY THE2D RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C No.4078 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th November, 2014 ORDER

The petitioners herein are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C No.293 of 2003 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The other accused in the case faced trial and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of a settlement made out of court. The case against these two petitioners was split up and refiled as SC488of 2008. Now they seek orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the prosecution on the ground that proceeding with the prosecution will not serve any purpose in the above circumstances. Annexure-III judgment shows that the other accused obtained a judgment of acquittal when all the material witnesses turned hostile during trial. The de facto complainant, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident, is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding. Crl.M.C No.4078 of 2014 2 He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint. The offences involved in the case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 365 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.

2. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT108SC ] and in Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and another[ 2014 (2) KLJ252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the parties have come to terms amicably, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, the the High Court can act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even in cases involving no-compoundable offences. Here, I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute. In view of the settlement made out of court, nobody will support the prosecution, and the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case. I find that this is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. Crl.M.C No.4078 of 2014 3 In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in S.C488of 2008 before the learned Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. Sd/- P.UBAID, ma JUDGE. /True copy/ P.S to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial