Dismissed

Ike Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jan 2008Crl.MC/65/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Panchayath President accused of libel (Sec. 509 IPC), sought to quash FIR and proceedings citing lack of sanction under Panchayat Raj Act and Cr.P.C. The Court held that sufficiency of nexus between offence and official duty is a trial-stage question, and Section 482 is not applicable at the threshold, thus disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of holding Section 482 Cr.P.C. inapplicable to quash proceedings at the threshold; right to claim sanction reserved for trial stage.

Ike Mani Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 65 of 2008() ----------------------CC.1/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY ....................

¶5

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶6

¶7

IKE MANI, PRESIDENT, PANACHIKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT THEKKEKKARA VEETTIL, PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶14

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 65 of 2008**

¶15

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 24-01-2008**

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner who is the President of the Panachikkadu Grama

¶18

Panchayath and who is the accused in annexure A1 complaint registered by the Chingavanam Police as Crime No. 418 of 2006 alleging an offence punishable under Sec. 509 I.P.C. seeks to quash Annexure A1 complaint , A2 F.I.R. and A3 charge-sheet filed by the police. The allegation against the petitioner is that when P.W.2 (Kamala) who was the Secretary of the Panchayath refused to issue a death certificate on the ground that it could be issued only after getting the confidential report, the petitioner/accused abused her in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 509 I.P.C. Apart from attributing political hostility to the complainant, Kamala, the petitioner has also a further ground that he is a public servant who can be prosecuted only after obtaining a sanction as contemplated by Sec. 248 of the Panchayat Raj Act and 197 of Cr.P.C. Even assuming that the petitioner is a public servant, the question as to whether there was sufficient nexus between the alleged offence and the discharge of his official duty is a matter

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

Crl.M.C. No. 65 of 2008

¶21

which may have to be considered during the trial of the case. Hence, Sec. 482 cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings at the threshold. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the appropriate stage, this Crl. M.C. is disposed of.

¶22

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶23

Communicate a copy of this order to the Court below.

¶24

ani.

Ike Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ike Mani 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

Shanoj Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Another

T.T.Joseph Vs Antony and Anr.

M.B.Kunjumuhammed Vs District Collector, Ernakulam and Others

O. Hareesh & Others Vs S.I. of Police & Another