Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SALIM.K.M – Appellant
Versus
SHINE M.T – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 475 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
A Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed as infructuous when no physical copy is submitted, impacting the ability to recall an arrest warrant.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition under Criminal Miscellaneous Case is aimed at recalling a warrant issued in a pending criminal trial under S.T.No.375 of 2011. Facts of the Case: The petitioner contends the warrant should be recalled, but the case was not admitted due to the lack of a physical copy submitted to the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the case has outlived its purpose and ultimately dismissed it as infructuous.
Issues: The core issue framed was whether the warrant could be recalled in absence of a physical copy of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the lack of physical submission rendered the petition ineffective, stating, 'the Crl.M.C. has outlived its purpose.'
Result: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed as infructuous, reserving the right to further remedies for the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court assesses the purpose of the criminal miscellaneous case. (Para 1 , 2) |
O R D E R
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thamarassery, to recall the warrant of arrest that has been issued against the petitioner in S.T.No.375 of 2011.
2. Although the Crl.M.C. was filed on 10.01.2025, the petitioner has not produced the physical copy, the court has not admitted the case and no interim order has been passed.
At this distance of time, I am of the view that the Crl.M.C. has outlived its purpose. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed as infructuous, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to workout his remedies, if there is any subsisting grievance.
