Allowed

P.Ramankutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2007Crl.MC/1655/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR registered against Panchayat officials accused of misconduct during illegal structure demolition. Finding the FIR based on malafide intent and no substantive merit, the court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the criminal proceedings prematurely.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 1655 of 2004 allowed; F.I.R. Crime No. 309/04 and all further action under it set aside.

P.Ramankutty Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 26TH MAGHA 1928

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1655 of 2004()

¶5

------------------------CRIME NO. 309/04 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION PALAKKAD

¶6

PETITIONER: ACCUSED.

¶7

¶8

P.RAMANKUTTY, VIAKASANA STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶9

P.K.VISWANATHAN, KSHEMAKARYA STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶10

C.THAMPU, VICE PRISEDENT, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶11

YESUDASAN.V.D. OVERSEER, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶13

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS.

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶17

K.A.THOMAS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶18

ADDL.R4. SURYAPRAKASH, S/O. THANKAPPAN, KOLAKKODE HOUSE, KOLAKKODE DESOM PARUVASSERY POST, PALAKKAD.

¶19

OMANA, D/O. THANKAPPAN, DO. DO. (ADD.4 & 5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CR.MA 8136/04 DT.15.2.07)

¶20

R3 TO 5 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

¶21

R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

R. BASANT, J.

¶24

CRL.M.C.NO.1655 OF 2004

¶25

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2007

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.309/04 of Vadakkencherry Police Station registered under Secs.448, 427, 294(b) and 506(1) read with Secv.34 of the IPC. They are Chairmen of the Vikasana Standing Committee, Kshemakarya Standing Committee, Vice President and Overseer respectively of the Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat. They have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the said F.I.R. registered against them.

¶28

Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance. Additional respondents 4 and 5 have been subsequently impleaded. Arguments have been heard of all the three counsel.

¶29

CRL.M.C.NO.1655 OF 2004 -: 2 :-

¶30

It the grievance of the petitioners that the police, in collusion with the additional respondents 4 and 5, are initiating vexatious proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners were acting only in the discharge of their official duties under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules thereunder. The 5^th respondent was found to occupy a shed constructed illegally in the puramboke land belonging to the Panchayat over which she had no rights. After taking action, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules as decided by the Committee of the Panchayat, the unauthorised shed was demolished and removed. Instead of affording assistance to the Panchayat authorities, as required by law, the police officials acted hand in glove with the 5^th respondent and her brother – the 4^th respondent and started initiating false and vexatious proceedings against the petitioners by registering the F.I.R. in question. It is contended that the petitioners are protected by the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and that respondents 4 and 5, who have not chosen to challenge the order passed by the Panchayat directing the 5^th respondent to remove the unauthorised structure, has no

¶31

CRL.M.C.NO.1655 OF 2004 -: 3 :-

¶32

right in law to complain against the official duties performed lawfully by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently the Panchayat was compelled to come to this Court and seek a direction to the police to afford the requisite police assistance for enforcement of the decision in question. The learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 3/12/2004 in W.P.(c) No.28635 of 2004 passed by this Court.

¶33

Annexures-I to III produced along with this petition show clearly that the Panchayat was initiating proceedings in accordance with law against respondent No.5. The First Information Statement is seen lodged not by the 5^th respondent against whom the order was passed; but by the 4^th respondent. The 5^th respondent and/or the 4^th respondent have not chosen to take legal steps to challenge the decision of the Panchayat directing the 5^th respondent to remove the unauthorised obstruction. The averments in the complaint show that the complainant i.e., the 4^th respondent was not present at the scene when the alleged incident took place. A sweeping allegation has been raised in the following words by the 4^th respondent:

¶34

CRL.M.C.NO.1655 OF 2004 -: 4 :-

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the above sweeping allegation made by the 4^th respondent that the 5^th respondent was intimidated and abused, there is no other specific allegation raised which is not traceable to the legal obligation of the petitioners as the officials of the Panchayat to carry out their lawful duties .

¶36

Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there is merit in the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. It is evident from the totality of the circumstances that respondents 4 and 5, who have not chosen to challenge the decision of the Panchayat to remove the unauthorised obstruction in accordance with law so far, are only attempting to vex and harass the petitioners who are officials of the Panchayat to deter them from pursuing legal action. The 4^th and 5^th respondents, who have come on record, have no case that at any time they had

¶37

CRL.M.C.NO.1655 OF 2004 -: 5 :-

¶38

attempted to challenge the action taken by the Panchayat against them.

¶39

I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is an

¶40

eminently fit case where the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings initiated on the basis of Annexure-IV – F.I.R. registered by the respondents – police.

¶41

In the result:

¶42

(i) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The F.I.R. in Crime No.309/04 a copy of which is produced as Annexure-IV and all further action in pursuance of

¶44

that are set aside.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

¶47

Nan/

¶48

//true copy//

¶49

P.S. to Judge

P.Ramankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elsy Vs Shaju John

Nazeer and Another Vs State of Kerala

Manoj & Another Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty and Others Vs State of Kerala

Thadiyananikkal Veettil George Vs Forest Range Officer

Devasundari Vs Dr.P.Arunachalam & Anr.