Allowed

Victor Clitus v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2008Crl.MC/2911/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.C. No. 2911 of 2005, the high court dismissed a revisional petition regarding the quashing of charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, allowing the petitioner's request to quash the proceedings due to vague allegations and insufficient ingredients.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 946/2005 on the file of J.F.C.M's Court-I, Kollam are quashed against the petitioner.

Victor Clitus Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2911 of 2005()

¶6

------------------------CC.946/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

VICTOR CLITUS, S/O.PATHROSE, VIJOVILASAM VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERAKULAM.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI S.U.NAZAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11117/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2911/05

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

20.6.2008 SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶20

M.C.HARI RANI J.

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.M.C.No.2911 OF 2005

¶23

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JUNE, 2008

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.13/05 of East Kallada Police Station charge sheeted under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC which is numbered as C.C.No.946/05 on the file of the J.F.C.M's Court-I, Kollam. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.946/05, pending before that court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegation in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is that, on 16.1.2005 at 8 PM the petitioner has called the defacto complainant Dharaneendran, through telephone and abused him with filthy languages and threatened

¶28

him by saying “ക�ണ�ച� തര��“ and thereby the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and

¶29

CRL.M.C.No.2911/05

¶30

-2-

¶31

506(ii) of IPC. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the case was charge sheeted against the petitioner only to harass him with no sufficient ingredients under sections 294(b) and 506(ii). The learned counsel has also relied on the decision reported in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and another (2005(7) SCC 69) and also Santhilal v. Parameswaran Pillai (1982 (2) KLT SN. 74)

¶32

to support his arguments.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that sufficient ingredients are there in the charge to proceed against the petitioner in the above case.

¶34

On a perusal of the final report in the above case filed before the J.F.C.M.-I, Kollam produced along with this petition as Annexure A1, it is revealed that the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is vague in nature with no sufficient ingredients as enunciated under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. In the above said decisions, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is specifically stated that in order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the specific words used by the assailant should be there, without which it is not possible for a court to consider whether that offence is attracted or not. The words used has not been stated in

¶35

CRL.M.C.No.2911/05

¶36

-3-

¶37

the final report produced in the present case. So, also the alleged threatening made by the petitioner to the de facto complainant that “I will show you” will not attract the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, wherein, the threat should be to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause the destruction of any property by fire or to cause the offence punishable with death, etc. Thus, even going by the allegations in the complaint, sufficient ingredients to attract the offences under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC are not there to proceed with against the petitioner. In such circumstances, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.946/05 would result in clear abuse of the process of the court and the quashing of the impugned proceedings would serve the ends of justice. Hence the proceedings in C.C.No.946/05 on the file of J.F.C.M's Court-I, Kollam are quashed against the petitioner.

¶38

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶39

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶40

dsn

Victor Clitus v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Victor Clitus 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan Vs Divya

Kumari Varma Vs State of Kerala

D.W.Satheesh Vs Dr.Y.Raja Retnam

Varghese Paul Vs State of Kerala

Kana Rugmini Vs State of Kerala

Johny M.Varrikkat Vs State of Kerala