Unais vs State of Kerala

UNAIS vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 04, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1310088

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1310088
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas
Decided On: Mar 04, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/1638/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

UNAIS

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....92(d) of the rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016, for quashing annexure-1 fir.2. the prosecution allegation is that on 22.09.2023, at01.15 p.m., the petitioner, who was running vl (vodafone-idea) mobile shop committed rape on the defacto complainant, a lady staff in that shop, having 40% mental retardation. thereafter, he threatened her to abort her marriage, which was already fixed, if she divulged that incident to anybody.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor.4. learned counsel for the petitioner would admit that crl.m.c.no.1638/2024 3 investigation is pending and final report is yet to be filed. if an offence is disclosed, in the fir, normally the courts willnot interfere with the investigation. at the stage of investigation, materials collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinised to quash the crime registered against the accused. so the investigating officer has to be permitted to complete the investigation and to file the final report.5. in satvinder kaur v. state [2000 khc 493], the apexcourt deprecated the practice of quashing fir without the investigation being completed and final report being filed. only by detailed investigation, the investigating officer could unfurl the allegations made against the accused. evidence has to be collected by questioning witnesses, who have witnessed the incident or even by bringing out circumstantial evidence.6. in state of kerala v. o.c.kuttan [1999 (2) scc 651], the apex court gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised crl.m.c.no.1638/2024 4very sparingly with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases. the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the fir or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 1638 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1367/2023 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED: UNAIS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O MOOSA, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, PALACHODU POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679338. BY ADV AMAL PARTHASARADHY RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031. 2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJIT GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1638/2024 2

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.1367 of 2023 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram, registered under Sections 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, for quashing Annexure-1 FIR.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.09.2023, at

01.15 p.m., the petitioner, who was running Vl (Vodafone-Idea) mobile shop committed rape on the defacto complainant, a lady staff in that shop, having 40% mental retardation. Thereafter, he threatened her to abort her marriage, which was already fixed, if she divulged that incident to anybody.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would admit that Crl.M.C.No.1638/2024 3 investigation is pending and final report is yet to be filed. If an offence is disclosed, in the FIR, normally the courts will

not interfere with the investigation. At the stage of investigation, materials collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinised to quash the crime registered against the accused. So the investigating officer has to be permitted to complete the investigation and to file the final report.

5. In Satvinder Kaur v. State [2000 KHC 493], the Apex

Court deprecated the practice of quashing FIR without the investigation being completed and final report being filed. Only by detailed investigation, the investigating officer could unfurl the allegations made against the accused. Evidence has to be collected by questioning witnesses, who have witnessed the incident or even by bringing out circumstantial evidence.

6. In State of Kerala v. O.C.Kuttan [1999 (2) SCC 651], the Apex Court gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised Crl.M.C.No.1638/2024 4

very sparingly with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage, it is not possible for the court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other.

7. In the case on hand, a lady staff, who was having 40%

mental retardation was raped by the petitioner in his mobile shop. The investigation is underway and at this stage, this Court is not expected to quash the crime without giving an opportunity to investigate the crime and to file the final report. So, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition. Crl.M.C.No.1638/2024 5

8. At the same time, there shall be a direction to the SHO of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram, to complete the investigation in Crime No.1367 of 2023 and to file the final report, without any further delay.

With this direction, above Crl.M.C. stands dismissed. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/- Crl.M.C.No.1638/2024 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1638/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 COPY OF FIR 1367 IN CRIME NO.1367/2023 REGISTERED BY PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. Annexure 2 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.02.2024 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties UNAIS vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas