The High Court of Kerala dismissed the applicant's petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for alleged ragging-related offences, holding that a full investigation was needed before concluding abuse of process.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 975 of 2012 ()
------------------------CRIME NO.43/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
ANUROOP K.K., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, KALLATINGAL HOUSE, POOPUTHY. P.O., MALA, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN,
SRI.P.G.SURESH, SMT.K.VIDYA, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ.
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. S.I. OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. P.O., PIN-689 645.
3. ARUN KUMAR. K.S,
S/O.SOMASEKHARAN, KIZHAKUMURIYIL, IVARKAALA, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 507.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.R. RANJITH.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 975 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE-A1 | A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.43/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 10.01.2012. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE-A2 | A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 10.01.2012. |
| ANNEXURE-A3 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED PROF. ALEXANDER, WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, WITH HAS BEEN COUNTERSIGNED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA CERTIFYING THE PETITIONER'S ATTENDANCE IN THE UNIVERSITY PRACTICAL EXAMINATION, DATED 28-02-2012. |
| ANNEXURE-A4 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEDURES INITIATED AND CONCLUSION ARRIVED FOR THE ALLEGED RAGGING IN COLLEGE CAMPUS ON 10.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 12.03.2012. |
| ANNEXURE-A5 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF REVOCATION OF SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.02.2012, BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONDUCTED. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.975 of 2012
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner is one among the accused in a crime registered by the Pathanamthitta police station for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code {for short “the IPC”} and section 4 of the Prohibition of Ragging Act. The investigation of that crime is now in progress. Petitioner has filed the above petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against him arising from Annexure A1 FIR registered in the crime contending that the allegations imputed by the de facto complainant in his complaint do not make out any offence under the IPC or Ragging Act, and as such, continuation of such proceedings against
Crl.M.C.No.975 of 2012
:: 2 ::
him is an abuse of the process of court. It is too early to draw any conclusion with respect to the complicity of the petitioner in the offences imputed, where investigation is going on in the crime involving grave offences. Whether the petitioner is culpable or not is a matter that could be determined only after a full-fledged investigation of the crime, and, if so culpable, the offence committed by him. When he is proceeded as an accused on a complaint from the victim who is alleged to have been ragged, definitely, the case calls for a detailed probe and a thorough investigation. So much so, this is not a fit case where invoking of the inherent powers of this court which can be used only sparingly is called for. It is open to the petitioner to canvass whatever defences available to him in case any indictment is levelled against him after
Crl.M.C.No.975 of 2012
:: 3 ::
completion of the investigation and filing of a
charge sheet.
Reserving the right of the petitioner to
do so, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//
ANUROOP K.K.
STATE OF KERALA
ARUN KUMAR. K.S
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
