Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.1742/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 :- 1 SAILAN, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN, MALAYATTIL NIKARTHIL, PANAVALLY P.O., WARD NO.8, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688526 2 MANEESH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, ANJILIPARAMB HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., WARD NO.8, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA TALUK, BY ADVS. V.N.SANKARJEE V.N.MADHUSUDANAN R.UDAYA JYOTHI M.M.VINOD M.SUSEELA KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :- 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, POOCHAKKAL, 3 PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 66 YEARS S/O KESAVA PANICKER, PUTHENVELIYIL, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALLY MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, BY SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.1742 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala. In the aforesaid case, they are facing prosecution for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 427 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The aforesaid case has originated on the basis of the information furnished by the party respondent herein on 4.9.2017 before the
Station House Officer, Poochakkal Police Station. The investigation was completed, and Annexure-1 final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the year 2017.
4. The prosecution allegation is that on the accused were having
previous enmity towards the informant. On 3.9.2017 at about 7:30 PM, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, are alleged to have assaulted the informant after hurling abuses. They are also alleged to have snatched his mobile phone from his possession and destroyed it, thereby causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 7000/-.
5. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that the petitioners herein have been falsely implicated in this case. He would contend that there are civil litigations between the petitioners herein and the party respondent, which are pending before the jurisdictional civil court. According to the learned counsel, it is with a view to exert pressure on the petitioners and to subdue them that false accusations have been leveled and the police, without conducting a proper investigation, have laid the final report.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the prayer. It was submitted that the petitioner herein has not made out a case for invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials made available.
8. 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 Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2021 SCC Online SC 315].
9. 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 purported contradictions in the witnesses' statements, absence of serious injuries, the timeliness of the complaint, the presence of the accused during the incident, and other related matters fall within the domain of
consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court is not 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 before 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 petitioners have not made out any case for intervention at this stage. If the petitioners deem it appropriate, they may seek discharge at the appropriate stage.
This petition is dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE SMA APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6083/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT TOGETHER WITH F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 951/2017 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT DATED 1.8.2010 AS AMENDED BY THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2019 IN I.A. NO. 2639/2019 IN O.S. NO. CHERTHALA Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3648/2008 DATED 10.11.2008 ON THE FILE OF THE S.R.O., PANAVALLY Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 20.6.2019 IN I.A. NO. 3245/2011 IN O.S. NO.351/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.6.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13430/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.12.2019 OF
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA TOGETHER WITH F.I.R. NO. 1035/2019 AND REPORT UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 Annexure VII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2020 IN CRL.M.C. NO.16/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT