ABDUL HANEEFA v. STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2024-01-10. ABDUL HANEEFA v. STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS TH WEDNESDAY, THE 10 DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 CRL. MC NO. 208 OF 2024 CRIME NO. 759/2018 OF Chokli Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 183/2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, THALASSERY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ABDUL HANEEFA AGED 44 YEARS S/O. MOIDU KUNHI HAJI, BADARIKADAMBU HOUSE, LAPTANNUR, BANDYAL TALUK, SOUTH KANADA, KARNATAKA, PIN - 574243 BY ADVS. ADARSH KURIAN ANWIN JOHN ANTONY RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHOKLI POLICE STATION), PIN - 682031 SR. PP-SRI. RENJIT GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10. 01. 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL. M. C. No. 208/2024 .. 2.. SOPHY THOMAS, J ========================= Crl. M. C. No.
208 of 2024 ========================== th Dated this the 10 day of January, 2024 ORDER This is a petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the sole accused in SC 183/2020 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Thalassery, for quashing Annexure-3 order dated 24. 11. 2023. 2. The petitioner filed Section 311 CrPC petition as Crl. M. P. No. 532/2023 before the Fast Track Special Court, Thalassery, for recalling the victim boy, who was examined as PW1 on 04. 10. 2023. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, some material questions were omitted to be asked during cross-examination. He filed an application under Section 311 CrPC earlier also, but it was dismissed for default. Subsequently, he filed Crl. M. P. No. 532/2023, for the very same purpose. 3. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 7 of Annexure- 3 order has stated that, on which aspect the witness has to be questioned further, was not clear from the petition filed by him.
More over, the victim was cross-examined in detail on CRL. M. C. No. 208/2024 .. 3.. 04. 10. 2023. The victim boy was aged only 13 years, at the time of the alleged incident in the year 2018. So the Court found that there is no need for a further cross-examination of PW1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the matter is settled and the parents of the victim boy turned hostile to the prosecution. Hostility of witnesses cannot be termed as settlement always. Since PW1 was cross-examined in detail on 04. 10. 2023 and the questions omitted to be asked during his cross-examination will not find a place in the petition, this Court finds no illegality and impropriety in Annexure-3 order. So this Crl. M. C. stands dismissed.
The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application, before the trial court stating the factum of settlement and the learned Sessions Judge on ascertaining the factual situation from the parents of the victim, is at liberty to entertain such application, and to pass orders in accordance with law. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ACR CRL. M. C. No. 208/2024 .. 4.. APPENDIX OF CRL. MC 208/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED 04. 10. 2023 MADE BY PW1 IN SC NO. 183/2020 BEFORE THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, THALASSERY. Annexure-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23. 011. 2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 311 CR. P. C Annexure-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24. 11. 2023 IN CRL. M. P. NO. 532/2023 IN SC NO. 183/2020 OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, THALASSERY
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.