Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 PETITIONER/S: JAYAPRAKASH AGED 41 YEARS KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOORAKODE POST., VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679336 BY ADVS. I.DINESH MENON L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031, THROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The instant petition is filed, invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 3/2023 of
the Pattambi Excise Range. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 55(i), 58 & 13 r/w Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 07.01.2023 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was found in possession of 11.5 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and thereby committed the offence.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent of all allegations. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not present at the station at the relevant point in time. He would further contend that in connection with the marriage of the son of the neighbor, they have procured IMFL, and the same was stored in the car of the petitioner, which was parked in front of his house.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the crime has only
been registered and the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that out of the 12 liters, substantial amounts were IMFL meant for sale in the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials made available.
7. It has been well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is
entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offense. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal2,
AIR 1960 SC 866 1992 SCC (Cr) 426 State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma3, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another4, and more recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others5.
8. Upon careful examination of the available materials and
evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offense has been established against the petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning the plausibility of the version of the prosecution witnesses or that the action by the accused was without malafide intent and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court will not be justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 2005 SCC (Cr.) 293 021 SCC Online SC 315
before the court. It would be prudent for this court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for intervention at this stage. If the petitioner deems it appropriate, he may seek discharge at the appropriate stage. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3272/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE WEDDING INVITATION DATED NIL. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT DATED 08.01.2023. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 07.01.2023.