Petitioner sought quashal of FIR under Section 482 CrPC alleging false implication. Court dismissed petition, holding evidence insufficiency must be decided at trial after investigation concludes, though noting Section 506 allegations seem unsupported.
Prayer to quash Annexure-A F.I.R. and further proceedings was dismissed with observations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2007 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1929
Crl.MC.No. 621 of 2004()
(CRIME NO.59/2004 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION).
PETITIONER:
T.RADHA, ADVOCATE, MAVELIKKARA RESIDING AT “SACHU'S” KARIMUKAL, KOMALLOOR P.O. CHUNAKKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
RESPONDENTS: 1
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.A NO.2899/2004 IN CRL.M.C.NO.621/2004
DISMISSED.
12-12-2007 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
//TRUE COPY//
V.K.MOHANAN,J.
CRL.M.C.N0.621 OF 2004
Dated, 12th December, 2007.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the Ist accused in crime No.59 of 2004 of Nooranad Police station approached this Court with a prayer to quash Annexure-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings thereon. According to the petitioner, no offence is disclosed against the petitioner and she is falsely implicated in the above crime at the instance of certain police officers who are inimical towards her. Thus according to the petitioner it is a clear abuse of the powers of the court and that the F.I.R is liable to be quashed.
Crmc 621/04
-:2:-
servant from discharging his official duty, at about 4.15 p.m. on 20-2-2004, Ist accused abetted the other accused not to do their work and thereby A2 to A4 prevented the public servant from discharging his duty and he was threatened and thereby the accused have committed the above offences. Accordingly on the basis of the F.I.Statement lodged by one Vipinendran who was working as the Special Grade Secretary of Thamarakulam Grama Panchayat, the above crime was registered at about 4.45 p.m. on 20-2-2004. According to the petitioner, the said allegations are false and the petitioner is implicated due to extraneous considerations and enmity maintained by the police authorities as the petitioner was not in their good book.
Crmc 621/04
-:3:-
section 506 of IPC. It is further pointed out especially that the time of offence was only at 4.15 p.m on 20-2-2004 and within 30 minutes F.I.R. has been registered and the F.I.R. reached in the court at 4.45 p.m in an unusual speed and this hastiness itself is sufficient to hold the falsity of the offence registered against the petitioner. It was also pointed out by the counsel that going by the F.I.S. the petitioner was not at the place of occurrence while the first part of the incident took
place. Further it is argued that the police has no complaint with respect to the incident that took place prior to the arrival of the petitioner at the spot but the police has twisted the case such as that the whole incident took place after arrival of the petitioner at the spot. It is true that the petitioner did not admit her presence at the spot before 4.15 p.m. On the basis of the allegations contained in the F.I.S it is submitted that those story of the police is not believable. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no overt act is alleged against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Section 353 or 506 of IPC. At this stage, I am not
Crmc 621/04
-:4:-
proposed to enter into a finding regarding the allegations contained in the F.I.S. against the petitioner and also the contentions raised as the same is likely to affect either the prosecution or the defence. But on a perusal of the F.I.R. as well as F.I.S., I am of the view that at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations contained in the FIR as well as FIS do not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner.
Crmc 621/04
-:5:-
opinion as to whether evidence collected are sufficient to lay charge against the petitioner. The sufficiency of the evidence or the materials in support of the offence alleged are to be scrutinized at the time of trial and not in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with annexure-A F.I.R. and the further investigation of the case at this stage.
Crmc 621/04
-:6:-
or the de facto complainant so as to attract section 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that no offence under section 506 will lie against the petitioner on the basis of the averments contained in the FIS. I am sure that after investigation if no offence under section 506 is disclosed, the police will definitely delete that offence. But of course, it has to be noted that investigation is in the infant stage and after collecting the materials and evidence if the police is of opinion that materials are sufficient and available for laying the charge under section 506, the police is also free to proceed in that direction.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
kvm/-
Crmc 621/04
-:7:-
kvm/-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
No....
Judgment/Order
Dated:
Crmc 621/04 -:8:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the offence under sections 353 and 506 of IPC warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner, an advocate, can be said to have threatened the complainant under the facts alleged.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Radha
State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Noorunadu
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
