The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Criminal Misc. petition seeking under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an IPC complaint filed by residents alleging misconduct of opposites. The court held prima facie offence was made out and held this was not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction.
Application dismissing the petition to quash the complaint under S. 482 Cr.P.C.
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 P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1303 of 2012 ()
CC.NO. 15/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 16 :
1. A.SOMAN
2. MOHANAKUMAR,
3. REJI V. PAUL,
4. DAVID CHERIYAN,
5. GEORGE PAUL,
6. ARAVINDHAKSHAN NAIR,
BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 1303 of 2012 () -2-
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :
1. NARAYANAN NAIR S./O.OZHIYARATHU KRISHNAN NAIR KOLLAPPARAMBIL VEETTIL, VADAKKAN MARADI KARA MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK -686661.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED
----------------------------------
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/3/14 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 2881/14 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1303/12.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR
SRI.S.RAJKUMAR SRI.N.JAGATH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
Crl.MC.No. 1303 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY 150 PERSONS AGAINST THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE. ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY O FTHE FIR, DATED 22.11.2004. ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPIES OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.05.2010 SENT TO ONE OF THE SIGNATORIES TO ANNEXURE A-1 PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 24.05.201O SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE IST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BFRORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ON16.8.2010.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
P.D. RAJAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2014
O R D E R
This is a petition filed u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C to quash Annexure-A6 complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha filed under Sections 143, 146, 153A, 499, 504, 505 and 509 of IPC against the residents of Tagore Nagar Residents' Association, Giri Nagar Residents' Association, Gandhi Nagar Residents' Association, Royal Flat Residents' Association, and residents of Ward No.17 and 18 of the Muvattupuzha Municipality. After filing this Crl.M.C., the first respondent died and his legal heir was impleaded.
-2-
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
signatories to that petition. The first respondent's son was also an accused in another Cr.P.C. proceedings under Section 107 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha for his criminal activities which disturbed the public tranquility. When the disturbance of the first respondent and his children were intolerable, the petitioners and others approached this Court by filing W.P.C No.17045/2010 seeking police protection. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the first respondent filed Annexure-A6 without any bonafides. If trial is proceeded, it will be a mere abuse of the process of court. Hence they pray to quash Annexure-A6.
-3-
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
and family members. He admitted that several civil cases are pending between the petitioners and the respondents. He alleges that the petitioners who signed in that petition are involved in several criminal cases and suppressing those aspects they filed W.P.(C) No.17045/2010 and the complaint. In the circumstance, the first respondent filed a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha.
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
-4-
first and third respondents. There is some dispute between the second petitioner and the third respondent regarding a pathway through the property of the third respondent and by filing this false complaint they are trying to trespass into the third respondent's property only for protecting the interest of the second petitioner. Hence they pray to dismiss the application.
jurisdiction can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily conduct an enquiry with regard to the evidence produced before Court as to whether it is reliable or not or whether it is sufficient for a conviction. At this stage, this court is bound to consider the prima facie satisfaction of a case. The specific contention of the petitioners in this case is that they filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha with the help of
-5-
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
other residents' association in good faith. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get protection of Eighth exception to Section 499 of the IPC. Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC reads thus:
Eighth Exception.- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person .-It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.
What was the lawful authority over the first and third respondents was not mentioned by the petitioners while claiming the exception mentioned under 8th clause. According to the party respondents, petitioners made false and malicious allegations with intention to harm their reputation. Specific allegation is made not only against the first respondent but against his male and female children also. What was the criminal act done by the female members are not mentioned in the petition. While considering that aspect, I have to consider whether the allegations prima facie establish any offence as alleged. Secondly, if prima facie offence is made out whether the
-6-
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
interest of justice permit to continue such prosecution. Considering the totality of the averment in Annexure A-6, I am of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners in Annexure A-6. That be so, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction. The Apex Court in M.N. Damani v. S.K.
Sinha and Ors. [(2001) 5 SCC 156] held as follows:
“For deciding whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied:(1) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (2) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. On a plain reading of the order of the Magistrate issuing summons to the respondents, keeping in view the allegations made in the complaint and sworn statement of the appellant, it appears that a prima facie case is made out at that stage. There are no special features in the case to say that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. The Single Judge of the High Court failed to apply this test. The High Court could not say at that stage that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction resulting in the case after a trial. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC., several questions still remain to be examined - whether such imputations were made in good faith, in what circumstances, with what intention, etc. All these can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. Having regard to the facts of the case it must therefore, be held that the High Court committed a manifest error in quashing the criminal proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.”
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
-7-
7. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held s follows:
“(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.(2)Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2).
(5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance.”
In the circumstance, considering the averments, I am
of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke inherent
Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2012
-8-
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the allegations are to be examined by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha by an enquiry or trial. Therefore, I cannot invoke such jurisdiction at this stage and I dismiss this application.
Sd/- P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
//True copy//
P.A. TO JUDGE
shg/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. is exercisable to quash an IPC complaint filed by residents over civil disputes and alleged criminal activities.
Whether the allegations prima facie establish an offence and if a trial is necessary to determine good faith under the eighth Exception.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha and Ors.Distinguished¶84
M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha and Ors. [(2001) 5 SCC 156] · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. BhajanlalExplained¶89
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A. SOMAN and others (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 16)
NARAYANAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
