Allowed

Abraham @ Regi v. a.M.Antony and Another

Kerala HC7 Nov 2008Crl.MC/2689/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed a criminal FIR registered on identical facts after the complainant filed a second complaint following the rejection of an earlier one. The court held that the complainant abused the criminal adjudicatory process by raising frivolous allegations repeatedly.

What did the court decide?

Crime No.540/08 registered at Kattappana police station is hereby quashed.

Abraham @ Regi Vs a.M.Antony and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2689 of 2008()

¶6

-------------------------------------(CRIME NO.540 OF 2008 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:

¶8

------------------------------------------

¶9

ABRAHAM @ REGI, KURUMANNIL HOUSE, NATHUKALLU, KATTAPPANA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶12

---------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. A.M.ANTONY, EZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE, NATHUKALLU KARA,UPPUKANDAOM P.O., KATTAPPANA.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

R.BASANT, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.2689 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 7^th day of November 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Service is not complete. There is no representation for the first respondent.

¶23

The petitioner in this case has come to this court with the grievance that the first respondent/complainant is unnecessarily vexing and harassing him by abusing the criminal adjudicatory process and by raising frivolous allegations repeatedly against him. The first respondent initially filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Section 120B, 419 and 420 I.P.C. That complaint Annexue C was filed on 26/4/2008. Sworn statement of the complainant was taken. It appears that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied and posted the matter for further enquiry to 17/5/2008. There was no sitting on that date and the case was adjourned to 28/7/2008.

¶24

The incumbent in the chair of the learned J.F.C.M-I, Kattappana was transferred and a new incumbent started occupying the chair. The petitioner alleges that taking advantage of this situation, the complainant filed yet another

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2689/08

¶26

¶27

complaint and prayed that the same may be forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate accepted the said request and referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On that second complaint, on identical facts, crime No.540/08 has been registered. The petitioner has rushed to this court with the grievance that the first respondent/complainant has abused the process of court. Fraudulent suppression of facts by the first respondent/complainant has led to the reference being made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identical second complaint has been filed through another lawyer. It is prayed that crime No.540/08 may, in these circumstances, be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The report of the learned Magistrate was called for. Report dated 22/7/2008 confirms the truth of the submissions made by the petitioner. Respondent though served, has not chosen to appear before the court. From the averments made in the Crl.M.C, from the submissions made at the Bar and from the report dated 22/7/2008 submitted by the learned Magistrate, it is

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2689/08

¶30

¶31

evident that the grievance raised by the petitioner is absolutely justified. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that crime No.540/08 registered at the Kattappana police station only deserves to be quashed.

¶32

In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶33

b) Crime No.540/08 of Kattappana police station is

¶34

hereby quashed.

¶35

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.2689/08 4

Crl.M.C.No.2689/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

Abraham @ Regi v. a.M.Antony and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham @ Regi v. a.M.Antony and Another

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

M/S.Sarath Enterprises Vs K.G.Shaji

Jyothi Vs Director General of Police,Thiruvanantha

Arul Das Vs State of Kerala

K.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Pradeesh Vs State of Kerala