IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY,THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 331 of 2014 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CC5372013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADIMALI CRIME NO. 652/2013 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION , IDUKKI ------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- JOSE, AGED47YEARS, S/O.VARKEY KOCHUKUNNEL HOUSE, 200 ACRE KARA, MANNAKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALY. BY ADVS.SRI.JOY C. PAUL DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031.
2. SAHITHRA, W/O.JOSE,, AGED42YEARS200ACRE KARA, MANNAKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALY- 685 561. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 331 of 2014 -------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ---------------------------------------- A1: STATEMENT DATED1011/2012 OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.1591/2012 A2: F.I.R.DATED1011/2012 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION A3: REMAND REPORT DATED1311/2012 A4: PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED114/2013 FILED BY A5: F.I.R. DATED194/2013 BEFORE J.F.C.M.COURT, ADIMALY A6: FINAL REPORT OF CC.537/2013 JFCM COURT, ADIMALY. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE ---------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.No.331 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 11th day of February, 2014. ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash Annexure A5 & A6 First Information Report and final report filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1592/12 of Adimaly Police Station. The crime was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as alleging offences under Sections. 294(b), 341, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. In that he was arrested and remanded to custody and thereafter he was released on bail. Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly in respect of the same incident, another case was registered as Crime No.652/13 as Annexure A5 and after investigation, Annexure A6 final report was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.537/13 by the same court. According to the petitioner, the second First Information Report Crl.M.C.No.331 of 2014 :
2. : in respect of the same incident is unsustainable in law and so, Annexures A5 & A6 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Since this court felt that this matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since both these cases were registered on the basis of the same incident, the second First Information Report is unsustainable in law and he had relied on the decision reported in Antony v. State of Kerala 2001(3) KLT1(SC) .
5. It is seen from the averments in the petition itself that Annexure - A2 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.1592/2012 against the petitioner and his son alleging offences under Sections.294(b), 324, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of Annexure A1 statement given by the de facto complainant who is the wife of the petitioner. The investigation of that case is still in progress. It is also in a way admitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the above crime and remanded to custody and later he was released on bail. It is also seen from Crl.M.C.No.331 of 2014 :
3. : the records and from the documents produced by the petitioner himself that the second respondent has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly claiming reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Interim Protection Order was passed under Section 19 of the Act restraining the petitioner herein from committing any act of violence against the de facto complainant who is the second respondent herein. Since the petitioner had violated that order by inflicting bodily injury to the second respondent, second respondent filed a complaint under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act and that was forwarded to the police by the learned magistrate and in respect of the same Annexure A5 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.652/13 under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of Admilay police station. After investigation, Annexure A6 final report was filed in that case and that was taken on file by the learned magistrate as C.C.No.537/13. So, it is clear from this that both these offences are distinct and different offences committed under two enactments. One under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. So, it cannot be said that second First Crl.M.C.No.331 of 2014 :
4. : Information Report registered for taking action for violating the Interim Protection Order given to the aggrieved person in that matter who is the second respondent herein is also for the same offence for which Annexure A2 crime was registered. So, the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Antony v. State of Kerala 2001(3) KLT1(SC) relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. There is no illegality in the police registering the case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent before the concerned magistrate court which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing Annexure A5 & A6 as claimed in the petition invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge