Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MUHAMMED IHSAN N. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 97 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.E.A.HARIS, SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER, SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL, SMT.AAGI JOHNY, SMT.RAHEEBA THESNI
For the Respondents: SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.E.A.HARIS, SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER, SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL, SMT.AAGI JOHNY, SMT.RAHEEBA THESNI
For the Respondents: SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous signifies that the case no longer presents a live controversy warranting judicial intervention.
Headnote:In the context of WP(CRL.) NO. 97 OF 2026, the petitioner, MUHAMMED IHSAN N., filed a Writ Petition which the court dismissed as infructuous, indicating the matter had no further utility (as expressed in the order). The finding concluded that the legal proceedings no longer served a purpose. The honorable judge quoted: 'the matter has become infructuous'. The final outcome was dismissal as infructuous.
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE
SKP
