Bidyadhar Parida Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1142653
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMay-28-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
AppellantBidyadhar Parida
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice k.ramakrishnan wednesday, the28h day of may20147th jyaishta, 1936 crl.mc.no. 2456 of 2014 (a) --------------------------------------- [against c.c.no.5548/2013 pending before the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, thrissur] ............ petitioner/ 3rd accused: ------------------------------------------ bidyadhar parida, aged25 s/o.ankuli parada village, chandrasekharapur, town khanguria, dist. khurda. by adv. smt.sadhana kumari .e. respondent/complainant: -------------------------------------------- the state of kerala, represented by the sub inspector of police, nedupuzha police station (crime no.1312/2013), thrissur district, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. by public prosecutor smt. s. hyma. this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on2805-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: prv. crl.m.c. no.2456/2014 - a: appendix petitioner's annexures: annexure1 true copy of the voter's identity card. annexure2 true copy of the f.i.r. annexure3 true copy of the report and affidavit. annexure4 the copy of the report from the finger prints bureau dated0410/2013. annexure5 the copy of the objection. annexure6 the copy of the bail order. annexure7 certified copy of the charge sheet/final report. respondent's annexures: nil. //true copy// p.a. to judge. prv. k. ramakrishnan, j.============================== crl.m.c.no.2456 of 2014 ============================== dated this, the 28th day of may, 2014. order this is an application filed by the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in c.c.no.5548/2013 pending before judicial first class magistrate court, no-ii, thrissur, to quash the proceedings under section 482 of code of criminal procedure. (hereinafter called the 'code') 2. it is alleged in the petition that petitioner is arrayed as 3rd accused in crime no.1312/2013 of nedumpuzha police station of thrissur district alleging offences under sections 454, 461 and 380 of indian penal code. after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as c.c.no.5548/2013 and that is pending before judicial first class magistrate court, no-ii, thrissur. according to the petitioner, as per the police records, one boidhur poida s/o aakur poida of sompur, bengal had involved in the crime. but, the present petitioner's name is bidhyadar parida son of akuli parida of chandrasekharpur of khurda district of odissa. the materials collected do not tally with the petitioner also so as to implicate him as an accused in the case. so, according to the crl.m.c.no.2456 of 2014 :2. : petitioner, the materials collected are not sufficient to connect the petitioner in connection with the crime. further, the session judge was granted bail on condition of executing a bond for rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each and one of the sureties should be from kerala having property in kerala and since he is a person from outside kerala, he is not able to comply with that condition as well. he was arrested on 31.09.2013 and he is in jail from that day onwards. so, he has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: "to quash the annexure a7 charge sheet in c.c.no.5548/2013 pending before hon'ble jfcm ii thrissur district." 3. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it is a case of 2013, since he is not able to comply with the condition, he will have to be in jail for long time. further, the material collected are not sufficient to connect him and also there is dispute regarding the identity as well.4. the application was opposed by the public prosecutor on the ground that on the basis of the evidence collected, it was revealed that he is one of the accused crl.m.c.no.2456 of 2014 :3. : involved in the commission of crime and it is not a matter to be quashed at this stage.5. the allegation in the petition was that there is some difference in the name of the person shown as third accused by the police officials in the final report and the present petitioner. so, the identity of the petitioner has not been established. further, the apprehension of the petitioner was that, since the case is of the year 2013, it will take long time to be disposed as well till then, he will have to be in jail as he is unable to comply with the condition imposed by the sessions court for granting bail. on going through the allegations in the petition regarding the identity, it is a matter for evidence. it is not possible at this stage coming to the conclusion as to whether he has involved in the crime or the person mentioned in the final report is the present petitioner or not on the basis of the mere documents produced as well. further, those documents have to be considered by the court on the basis of evidence to come to arrive at just conclusion as well. in a case where the matter has been decided on the basis of evidence, it is not proper to invoke section 482 of the code. however, this court has not made any opinion regarding the contentions raised in crl.m.c.no.2456 of 2014 :4. : the petition by disposing of this petition and he is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court at the time of evidence.6. as regards the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the delay in disposal, a report has been called for from the concerned court and the learned magistrate has sent a report stating that the case is now posted for examination of cw1 to 10.06.2014 and if three months time is granted he will be able to dispose of the case itself. though the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of by giving direction to the concerned magistrate to dispose of the case within three months from 10.06.2014 on which date the case is now posted for examination of the witnesses, considering the fact that he is in custody as under trial prisoner for more than six months now.7. the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings in view of the discussions made above and also considering the fact that he is a man from outside modifying the condition also will delay the disposal of the case as the case is now posted for examination of the crl.m.c.no.2456 of 2014 :5. : witnesses. so, i don't think that it is necessary at this stage to modify the condition.8. it is made clear that by disposal of this application, this court has not made any opinion regarding the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition and he is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court. so, the petition is disposed of as follows: the judicial first class magistrate court, no-ii, thrissur is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months from 10.06.2014 on which date the case is now posted for examination of witnesses. with the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. sd/- k.ramakrishnan, judge. bb [true copy] p.a to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE28H DAY OF MAY20147TH JYAISHTA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2456 of 2014 (A) --------------------------------------- [AGAINST C.C.NO.5548/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR] ............ PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ BIDYADHAR PARIDA, AGED25 S/O.ANKULI PARADA VILLAGE, CHANDRASEKHARAPUR, TOWN KHANGURIA, DIST. KHURDA. BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI .E. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.1312/2013), THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2805-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.2456/2014 - A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE1 TRUE COPY OF THE VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD. ANNEXURE2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. ANNEXURE3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND AFFIDAVIT. ANNEXURE4 THE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE FINGER PRINTS BUREAU DATED0410/2013. ANNEXURE5 THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION. ANNEXURE6 THE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER

. ANNEXURE7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No.2456 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of May, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.5548/2013 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Thrissur, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (Hereinafter called the 'Code') 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is arrayed as 3rd accused in Crime No.1312/2013 of Nedumpuzha Police Station of Thrissur District alleging offences under Sections 454, 461 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.5548/2013 and that is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Thrissur. According to the petitioner, as per the police records, one Boidhur Poida S/o Aakur Poida of Sompur, Bengal had involved in the crime. But, the present petitioner's name is Bidhyadar Parida son of Akuli Parida of Chandrasekharpur of Khurda District of Odissa. The materials collected do not tally with the petitioner also so as to implicate him as an accused in the case. So, according to the Crl.M.C.No.2456 of 2014 :

2. : petitioner, the materials collected are not sufficient to connect the petitioner in connection with the crime. Further, the Session Judge was granted bail on condition of executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each and one of the sureties should be from Kerala having property in Kerala and since he is a person from outside Kerala, he is not able to comply with that condition as well. He was arrested on 31.09.2013 and he is in jail from that day onwards. So, he has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: "To quash the Annexure A7 charge sheet in C.C.No.5548/2013 pending before Hon'ble JFCM II Thrissur District." 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it is a case of 2013, since he is not able to comply with the condition, he will have to be in jail for long time. Further, the material collected are not sufficient to connect him and also there is dispute regarding the identity as well.

4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that on the basis of the evidence collected, it was revealed that he is one of the accused Crl.M.C.No.2456 of 2014 :

3. : involved in the commission of crime and it is not a matter to be quashed at this stage.

5. The allegation in the petition was that there is some difference in the name of the person shown as third accused by the police officials in the final report and the present petitioner. So, the identity of the petitioner has not been established. Further, the apprehension of the petitioner was that, since the case is of the year 2013, it will take long time to be disposed as well till then, he will have to be in jail as he is unable to comply with the condition imposed by the Sessions Court for granting bail. On going through the allegations in the petition regarding the identity, it is a matter for evidence. It is not possible at this stage coming to the conclusion as to whether he has involved in the crime or the person mentioned in the final report is the present petitioner or not on the basis of the mere documents produced as well. Further, those documents have to be considered by the court on the basis of evidence to come to arrive at just conclusion as well. In a case where the matter has been decided on the basis of evidence, it is not proper to invoke Section 482 of the Code. However, this court has not made any opinion regarding the contentions raised in Crl.M.C.No.2456 of 2014 :

4. : the petition by disposing of this petition and he is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court at the time of evidence.

6. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the delay in disposal, a report has been called for from the concerned court and the learned magistrate has sent a report stating that the case is now posted for examination of CW1 to 10.06.2014 and if three months time is granted he will be able to dispose of the case itself. Though the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of by giving direction to the concerned magistrate to dispose of the case within three months from 10.06.2014 on which date the case is now posted for examination of the witnesses, considering the fact that he is in custody as under trial prisoner for more than six months now.

7. The petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings in view of the discussions made above and also considering the fact that he is a man from outside modifying the condition also will delay the disposal of the case as the case is now posted for examination of the Crl.M.C.No.2456 of 2014 :

5. : witnesses. So, I don't think that it is necessary at this stage to modify the condition.

8. It is made clear that by disposal of this application, this court has not made any opinion regarding the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition and he is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court. So, the petition is disposed of as follows: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Thrissur is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months from 10.06.2014 on which date the case is now posted for examination of witnesses. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge