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.

Salman vs the State of Kerala

Salman vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 07, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1710421

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
Case Number
Crl.MC/5654/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salman

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan wednesday, the 07th day of april 2021 / 17th chaithra, 1943 against the order/judgment in cc 23/2020 of judicial magistrate of first class -ii,perinthalmanna crime no.78/2019 of pandikkad police station , malappuram petitioners/accused:1 salman aged 25 years s/o. musthafa, pappadathil house, kadambode p.o., panthallur, malappuram district-676 521. 2 musthafa, aged 51 years s/o. pappadathil muhammed, pappadathil house, kadambode p.o., panthallur, malappuram district-676 521. by adv. sri.r.ranjith (manjeri) respondents/state, defacto complainant & injured:1 the state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, kochi-682031- for the sub inspector of police, pandikkad station, malappuram district. 2 musfir v.m aged 19 years s/o. muhammed basheer, vilakkumadathil house, mullampara, manjeri p.o., malappuram district-676 121. rb by adv.sri.ramesh chand, public prosecutor r2 by adv. a.p.nidhin kumar this criminal misc. case having been finally heard on 07.04.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:orderthe matter settled out of the court. an affidavit sworn by the defacto complainant is produced. the offences alleged are under section 341, 323, 326 r/w section 34 ipc. hence if it is proceeded further, it will not serve any purpose. the final report and the further proceedings are hereby quashed. the crl.m.c. is allowed accordingly. sd/- p.somarajan judge spv appendix petitioners' exhibits: annexure a true copy of the final report in crime no.78/2019 of the pandikkad police station. annexure b true copy of the affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent, dated 20.11.2020. respondents' exhibits: nil //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 23/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO.78/2019 OF PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SALMAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O. MUSTHAFA, PAPPADATHIL HOUSE, KADAMBODE P.O., PANTHALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521. 2 MUSTHAFA, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. PAPPADATHIL MUHAMMED, PAPPADATHIL HOUSE, KADAMBODE P.O., PANTHALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521. BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031- FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 MUSFIR V.M AGED 19 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, VILAKKUMADATHIL HOUSE, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121. RB BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The matter settled out of the Court. An affidavit sworn by the defacto complainant is produced. The offences alleged are under Section 341, 323, 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. Hence if it is proceeded further, it will not serve any purpose. The final report and the further proceedings are hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.78/2019 OF THE PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 20.11.2020. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial