Dismissed

Dr.Premsanker v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2013Crl.MC/4206/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Kerala was asked to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging false case registration after police manhandling. The court held that quashing was not appropriate when the matter depends on evidence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Relief prayed in petition for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is denied. Liberty reserved for petitioner to move lower court for discharge.

Dr.Premsanker Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013/1ST SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4206 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CC 145/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHAVAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED::

¶8

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

¶9

DR.PREMSHANKAR, NAVASREE, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

¶11

SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT::

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR, PIN-680 101.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4206 of 2010 ( )

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE	1:	COPY OF THE NOTE PREPARED AT RAJAH HOSPITAL, MUTHUVATTOOR, CHAVAKKAD DT 14/12/2009.
ANNEXURE	2:	COPY COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,THRISSUR DT 15/12/2009.
ANNEXURE	3:	COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 813/2009 REGISTERED BY THE R2 DT 13/12/2009.
ANNEXURE	4:	COPY OF THE F.I.STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE R2 DT 13/12/2009
ANNEXURE	5:	COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE R2 IN CRIME NO.813/2009 OF GURVAYOOR POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD AS C.C.NO.145/2010.
ANNEXURE	6:	COPY OF THE WPC NO.1898/2010 DT 19/1/2010.
ANNEXURE	7:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 30/11/2010 IN WPC NO. 1898/2010
ANNEXURE	8:	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY the INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,THRISSUR DT 10/5/2011.
ANNEXURE	9:	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 1062011 IN CON.CASE ( C) NO.201/2011.
ANNEXURE	10:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.P.NO.10313/2009 DT 20/7/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHAVAKKAD.
RESPONDE	NT'S	ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JDUGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C.No.4206 of 2010

¶28

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.145/2010, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

The case of the petitioner was that on 13.12.2009

¶32

at 8.30 a.m he along with his parents went to Guruvayoor temple for

¶33

darsan, and when the car reached the R.V. Tower Junction, the Civil Police officer in charge of traffic duty abused them with obscene and abusing language. The petitioner noted the chest number of the Civil Police Officer and went to the police station for lodging a complaint. In the meanwhile, the said Civil Police Officer had given information regarding the incident to the 2^nd respondent, making complaint against the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent instead of receiving the complaint, and registering a case against the wrong doer / Civil Police Officer, he along with his associates made him wait in the police station from 8.45 a.m to 12.30 p.m, and assaulted him and caused injuries to him. Due to the intervention of the

¶34

¶35

Crl. M.C.No.4206 of 2010

¶36

parents, he was thereafter produced before the learned magistrate and he was remanded for one day and then released on bail as per orders of the magistrate court. Further inorder to cover that incident,

¶37

they registered a false case against the petitioner as crime No.813/2009 under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the case is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad as C.C. No.145/2010. In the meanwhile, since no action was taken on the complaint filed by the petitioner, he moved this court, by filing W.P.(C). No.1898/2010 which was disposed of by this court, directing the Director General of Police to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders. Since, it is an abuse of process of court, he prayed for quashing the proceedings, hence he filed this application.

¶38

Heard both sides.

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing

¶40

submitted that, as per the proceedings of the government in G.O.(P) No.3397/2012(Home) dated 19.11.2012, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Sub Inspector of Police and his associates,

¶41

who had manhandled the petitioner, when he went there for giving a

¶42

Crl. M.C.No.4206 of 2010 3

¶43

complaint against the offending Civil Police Officer inrespect of the incident happened at the Traffic Junction, at Guruvayoor and they were found guilty and demoted in rank and sanction has been accorded to initiate criminal proceedings against the said police officials. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, he had filed a private complaint inrepect of that incident before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad and that is pending. So, according to him, it is a false case registered by the police inorder to cover off their wrongful act and this court can invoke the power under 482 and quash the proceedings.

¶44

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent

¶45

and the Government Pleader submitted that all these things are matters to be proved by evidence and when the case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence, this court cannot quash the proceedings.

¶46

I have considered the rival contentions of both

¶47

parties.

¶48

The case of the petitioner was that on the fateful

¶49

day, he was abused by a Civil Police Officer, who was on traffic duty

¶50

¶51

Crl. M.C.No.4206 of 2010

¶52

at Guruvayoor and when he went to the police station to lodge a complaint against him, the 2^nd respondent and others manhandled

¶53

and assaulted him and unlawfully detained him in the police station.

¶54

When they felt that he is likely to lodge complaint against them, inorder to cover off their wrong, they registered the above false crime against him. However, after investigation, the investigating agency has submitted the final report and the magistrate court has taken cognisance of the case as C.C. No.145/2010 and it is pending before that court.

¶55

Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no

¶56

charge has been prayed in this case so far. It is true that, the petitioner has produced before this court, the order of the Government for perusal in which it is stated that, disciplinary action has been taken as per the direction in W.P.C No.1898/2010(Q) dated 30.11.2010, of this court and they were found guilty of the charge and punishment of demotion of service was awarded and sanction was also granted to prosecute them for the offence as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for that purpose.

¶57

¶58

Crl. M.C.No.4206 of 2010

¶59

However, since all these things will have to be

¶60

considered on the basis of materials produced before the court, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶61

There is another case pending inrespect of the incident happened at Guruvayoor Junction before the same Court. Since, the incidents are different, the court can consider the application, if any, fled by the petitioner for discharge or hearing before plea of particulars of offence as the case may be, the magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since, I have already observed that this is not a matter where power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to be invoked, the relief claimed for in the petition cannot be granted. So, leaving open the liberty for the petitioner to move the lower court for the relief mentioned above, the petition is disposed of.

¶62

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶63

// True Copy //

¶64

P.A. To Judge

¶65

Dr.Premsanker v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Premsanker 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

Saidu Vs Sabeera and Others

Sreedharan Vaidyan Vs Archana V.K.

Cheriyan Peter Vs Asst. Labour Officer and Another

Malathi Vs Yatheendradas

Jacob Mathew and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Jubeesh Khan Vs Sub Inspector of Police