SHAMIL MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in C.C.No.2107/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal filed this Crl.M.C. praying to quash the final report in the case arising from Crime No.840/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. This Crl.M.C. came up for admission on 29/1/2021. Thereafter, it was considered on some other dates also. When it came up for hearing on 20/3/2025, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.8210/2023 while this Crl.M.C. was pending for the same relief and by order dtd. 31/10/2023 Crl.M.C.No.8210/2023 was allowed. Therefore, the Registry was directed to make available the files of Crl.M.C.No.8210/2023 for perusal. On perusal of the files, it was noticed that pendency of the above Crl.M.C. was not disclosed in Crl.M.C.No.8210/2023. The second Crl.M.C. was filed stating that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. A copy of the affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent was produced as an Annexure. Taking note of the settlement the Crl.M.C. was allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.2107/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal was quashed.

(2.) In the order dtd. 19/3/2025 it was noticed that the second Crl.M.C. obviously happened to be allowed without noticing the pendency of the above Crl.M.C. filed for the same relief. Observing that the conduct of the petitioner in this regard cannot be approved and practice of filing cases without disclosing pendency of cases previously filed for the same relief cannot be lightly ignored, Registry was directed to issue notice to the petitioner to show-cause as to why appropriate proceedings shall not be initiated and exemplary costs be imposed. When the case was considered again on 2/4/2025, the Registry placed on record a response from the petitioner received through e-mail. In view of the said communication, the petitioner was called upon to file a properly attested affidavit on or before 10/4/2025. Though the petitioner thereafter sent another statement in the format of affidavit to the Registry, the same was not properly attested. Notice issued by the Registry and printout of the e-mail from the petitioner along with the reply submitted by the petitioner to it shall be taken on the records of this case and marked as Annexures 'X' and 'Y' respectively.

(3.) Petitioner has stated in his reply that the above Crl.M.C. was filed arraying the de facto complainant as the 2nd respondent for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.2107/2020 and during the course of trial of the said case lawyer engaged by the de facto complainant took initiative for settling the disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Petitioner and the 2nd respondent agreed to close all cases between them. The lawyer intimated the petitioner that the counsel through whom the above Crl.M.C. was filed was not cooperative and if a fresh vakalath is executed, another counsel can be engaged in the above case after obtaining no objection certification/endorsement from the counsel who filed the above Crl.M.C. The lawyer obtained signature of the petitioner in a vakalath and some papers and the petitioner could not do any follow-up as he went abroad. He further states that filing of Crl.M.C.No.8210/2023 came to his knowledge only when he received notice issued pursuant to the order dtd. 19/3/2025. He also stated that the same might have happened on account of communication gap between him and the lawyer. He pleaded that the filing of another case for the same relief during pendency of the above Crl.M.C. may be pardoned as it happened on account of ignorance.