IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4487 of 2011 ------------------------- CC.149/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: 1. NOORUDHEEN, S/O.MOIDEEN, MIDHILALANGARATH VEEDU, PALAD PP., KANNUR DISTRICT 2. JUNAIDH, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, KUVAKPATTIL VEEDU NARATH P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 3. SAMEEM, S/O.MAJEED, P.P. VEEDU, MEEN ROAD VALAPPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR 4. JAMSHAD, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, MALIKAYIL VEEDU PAPINIASSERY P O, KANNUR 5. MANAF, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, P.P.HOUSE, KUNNUMKAI, CHIRAKKAL L PO, KANNUR 6. RAZAK, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNJIPADAM, PARAMBATH HOUSE PARAMBIN BDAZAR PO, KOZHIKODE 7. MOHAMMED ANAS, S/O.A.K. ABDULLA, MOORSHIDA MANZIL ANJAM PEDIKA, MOOTAMATH VIA. KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 2. JASHEERA, W/O.MOHAMMED, NADAKKAPARAMB HOUSE KOCHUKADAVU, ERAVATHUR PO, MALA, THRISSUR -680 734 3. MOHAMMED, NADAKKAPARAMB HOUSE, KOCHU KADAVU, ERAVATHUR PO, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 734 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STK Crl.MC.No. 4487/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: A1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-III, PALAKKAD BY THE COMPLAINANT A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT A3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, 2ND RESOPONDENT A4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE VICTIM 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE STK N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ C.R.M.C.No. 4487of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in CC.149/11 of JFCM -III, which arose out of Crime No. 19/11 of of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad. The complaint was filed by the second respondent (R2) alleging that the accused abducted her husband (R3), based on which a crime was registered. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 365 r/w 149 IPC. But later when the accused came back, she realised that her husband was not actually abducted by the accused but he went along with the accused for settling the account. The husband who was alleged to have been abducted is the 3rd respondent. R2 and R3 are represented in this court by their counsel. The learned counsel for R2 would submit that in fact an affidavit was filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate immediately after C.R.M.C.No. 4487Of 2011 -: 2 :- realising the fact that there was no abduction and that the complaint was given on a misconception of fact. Considering all the aspects, I find that prosecution against the accused would be an exercise in futility. Hence this petition is allowed. Proceedings in CC.149/2011of JFCM - III, Palakkad stands quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd