Pat untainted by malafides claims bias by Sub Inspector who registered FIR; Court dismisses petition under Section 482 CrPC, stating incongruities in case details do not justify premature termination, leaving petitioner to raise claims during trial.
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 R.BASANT
MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 1565 of 2008()
PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED
PANKAJAKSHANAN, S/O.KUMARAN, CHIRAKKAPADI HOUSE, KUZHIKKALA-THENGODE, THRIKKAKKARA, EKM (DIST).
BY ADV. SRI.ANANDAN PILLAI SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C that the crime registered against him may be quashed. According to the petitioner, the local Sub Inspector has animus and malafidies against him and he has with malicious motive of vexation and harassment against the petitioner, registered FIR in Crime No.805/07. That crime relates to an incident on 25.12.07.
2
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
officer. The learned Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the alleged incident had taken place on 25.12.07. All the accused, except 9th accused have by now been arrested. Petitioner has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. It is not correct to say that the officer who recorded the FIR is conducting the investigation also. As per the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Circle Inspector of police had taken over the investigation with effect from 21.01.08. It is that officer who was continuing the investigation. The allegation that the aggrieved himself is conducting the investigation is not correct. Learned Prosecutor further submits that long prior to the filing of this Crl.M.C, on 08.04.08, the final report has already been filed on 20.03.08. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, this petition may now be dismissed, it is prayed.
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
3
that the Sub Inspector who detected the offence has malafide motives and animus against the petitioner. This is of course to be raised and substantiated before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. Counsel further submits that there is incongruity between the FIR registered and the remand report under which the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate. The counsel argues that there is a question as to whether the incident took place by the side of a canal bund or on a public road. There is incongruity between the FIR and the remand report on this aspect. In both, it is stated that the incident took place near the Pranavam Arts Club. The dispute is whether that particular spot is canal bund or public road. I shall not embark on any further discussions on this controversy. Suffice to say that the said incongruity does not persuade me at all to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination, the steps taken against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
4
fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim appropriate relief from the learned Magistrate on the basis of the materials placed before the
learned Magistrate.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
5
Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C due to alleged malafides by the police officer.
Whether uncongruity between FIR and remand report is sufficient to invoke inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.
Whether the criminal petition allows premature termination of steps taken against the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1ST ACCUSED
COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
R. BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
