Dismissed

Jijo v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1079/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala was approached to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC alleging offences against the petitioner. The court declined the quashing prayer at the primitive stage, noting prior bail applications were dismissed. The court directed the petitioner to surrender and allowed the Magistrate to consider a bail application on the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings declined; petitioner directed to surrender and Magistrate directed to consider bail application immediately.

Jijo Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2032/2013 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

JIJO, AGED 34 YEARS SON OF JOSE, VADAKKAN HOUSE, PAZHUVIL THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI

¶10

RESPONDENTS / STATE :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION,

¶13

THRISSUR-680 664.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2014 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.2032/2013 DATED 26.12.2013. ANNEXURE-B: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. 2678/2013 DATED 7.1.2014. ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2014 IN B.A.NO.269/2014.

¶22

ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1335/2014. ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.12.2012 ALONG WITH THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION.

¶23

ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 23.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE ST.GEORGE FAMILIAL ASSEMBLY UNIT.

¶24

ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 26.12.2012 SUBMITTED PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE VICAR OF THE CHURCH.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1079 of 2014

¶31

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2014.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.2032/2013 of Anthikkad police station, Thrissur to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

¶34

It is alleged in the petition that the case has been registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto complainant against the petitioner and others alleging the offences under Sections 341, 452, 506(i) and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, no offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted as the crime itself was registered at the instigation of rival factions of the church, who have been in extreme animosity with the petitioner and his family based on some animosity existing for a long time. Though several complaints have been filed by the petitioner as well

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.1079 of 2014 2

¶36

as his mother to the authorities, that fell into deaf ear of those authorities. Instead they are only incriminating the petitioner in several offences alleging commission of non bailable offence. So the petitioner has no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

¶37

For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash FIR No.2032/2013 dated 26.12.2013 on the file of the 2^nd respondent by allowing this memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Case so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶38

On the basis of the allegations made in this petition, the Public Prosecutor has filed a statement alleging that the petitioner is involved in other crimes and in some of the crimes, final report has been filed and in some of the crimes, investigation is still in progress and denied the allegation that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the influential office bearers of the church in order to harass him.

¶39

On going through the allegations in the petition as well as in the statement filed by the investigating officer,

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.1079 of 2014 3

¶41

this Court felt that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is in the primitive stage. Further, in Annexures B and C orders of the sessions court and this Court which were passed in the petitions filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail in respect of the same crime, both the courts have dismissed the applications directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and after interrogation, the investigating officer has been directed to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate and if arrest is recorded, directed the Magistrate to consider the bail application and pas appropriate orders. But instead of complying with the directions, the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition.

¶42

After arguing for some time, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the court and a direction be given to the magistrate to consider and dispose of his bail application on the date of surrender itself, that will meet the ends of justice. Though such a direction is not necessary to be

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.1079 of 2014 4

¶44

given as, if he surrenders before the magistrate court and files an application, that will be considered by the Magistrate and pass orders in accordance with law. But, however, considering the apprehension made, this Court feels that this petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶45

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is declined as it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. If the petitioner surrenders before the concerned magistrate court and moves for bail, then the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the bail application after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as far as possible on the same date of filing the application itself.

¶46

With the above directions and observations this petition is disposed of.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.1079 of 2014 5

Jijo v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijo 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

Kanakan Vs State of Kerala

Rejith Vs State of Kerala

Premraj Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs Sibi Thomas

Renjith Vs Sibi Thomas

Limson Vs State of Kerala