Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1397/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two suspended civil police officers filed a miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking speedy disposal of their criminal trial. The High Court noted their long suspension and departmental inquiry delays, directing the lower court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within seven months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to expedite trial and dispose of the case within seven months from receipt of this order.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2014/12TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1397 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 3126/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 457/2013 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/IST AND 2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

1. MANOJ KUMAR S., AGED 41, S/O.SIVARAMAN, SIVAMANASAM, KESARI ROAD SOUTH BALUVAZI, NORTH PARAVOOR

¶9

2. NEERAJ M., S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 39,

¶10

KIZHAKKECHUVVODATH HOUSE PERUMBALAM PO, CHERTHALA,

¶11

ALAPPUZHA 688 570.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶13

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT :

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1397 of 2014 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM AS FIR NO.457/13. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 20//5/2013 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.MC NO.3812/2013.

¶23

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JFCM COURT II, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.MP NO.4485/2013

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶29

--------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2014

¶30

This criminal miscellaneous case is field by the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3126/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, for speedy disposal of the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are Civil Police Officers attached to the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, having 14 years of service. On 02.03.2013, while they were doing romeo patrolling, the respondent instructed to search the premises of Boat Jetty and Subash Bose Park and further directed to apprehend the anti socials involved in homo-sexuality. While searching the park premises, they found the defacto-complainant and another person sitting in the darkness and while seeing the

¶32

¶33

Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶34

police, the defacto-complainant and the person tried to escape from the spot. They were intercepted and questioned and thereafter they were asked to leave the spot. However, the defact-complainant suppressing these facts, lodged a complaint alleging extortion of money and the respondent without conducting any enquiry, registered a crime on the basis of the influence executed by a Senior Police Officer and Annexure-II final report has already been filed. Though they filed an application to quash the proceedings before this court, that was disposed of by this court by Annexure-A3 order, with liberty for the petitioners to move for discharge for the court below and if such an application is filed, dispose of that petition, within three months from the date of filing of the application. Before this order was passed, the case was made over to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, where it is now pending as C.C.No.3126/2013. There the petitioners filed an application for discharge, as Criminal M.P.No.4485/2013

¶35

¶36

Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶37

and the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A4 order. It is alleged in the petition that, they were under suspension for long time and the departmental disciplinary proceedings is in progress and they have not been reinstated, in view of the fact that, this criminal case is pending. They have lost 11 months and if the case is not disposed of, they will be put to serious hardship. So they filed this application, seeking the following relief:

¶38

“Hence this Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Case is field under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code only to direct the JFCM CourtII, Ernakulam to expedite the trial on an earlier date in the interest of justice.”

¶39

On the basis of the allegations in the petition, remarks of the concerned court was called for and the leaned magistrate has submitted a report, which reads as follows:

¶40

“With reference to the above, I may humbly submits the following for favour of kind consideration.

¶41

The above case was taken on file on 23..7.2013 upon a final report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central, Kochi City with the allegation of the commission of the offences punishable u/s. 384 r/w 34

¶42

Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶43

¶44

IPC.

¶45

One petition was filed by the accused in the above case for discharging u/s.239 Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed as per Order in CMP No.4485/13 dated 18.1.2014 of this court. Now the case stands posted for hearing on framing charge against the accused on 13.2.2015.

¶46

This report is submitted for information and kind consideration.”

¶47

The counsel for the petitioners wants only the indulgence of this court for a direction to the concerned magistrate to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible within a time frame.

¶48

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶49

The only grievance of the petitioners in the petition was that, because of the pendency of this case, their suspension was not revoked by the department and their suspension still continues. They are out of service and under suspension for the last 11 months. The departmental enquiry is also in progress and it is almost over. If this case is disposed of either way, they may be able to move the

¶50

¶51

Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶52

Government for appropriate relief.

¶53

It is well settled principle of law that, speedy trial is a right provided to an accused in a Criminal case, under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This court also should not forget the fact that, some of the courts are over burdened with pendency of cases and though they want to dispose of more cases because of the huge pendency, they were not able to fulfil the object of the constitution as such. Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam, is one such courts, which is having more number of cases waiting for disposal. But at the same time, considering the fact that, two police officers, who were under suspension for long time, awaiting the result of the pendency of the criminal case to take decision regarding their reinstatement also cannot be viewed lightly. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that, the petition can be disposed of, by giving some direction to the lower court to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as

¶54

¶55

Crl. M.C. No.1397 of 2014

¶56

possible. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶57

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, is directed to expedite trial of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within seven months from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the order, learned magistrate is directed to advance hearing, from the date to which it is now posted and dispose of the case within the time frame fixed by this court.

¶58

With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court.

¶59

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶60

// True Copy //

¶61

Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Favas Muhammed Sabith Vs the Station House Officer

Sainabha K Vs State of Kerala

Shakkeer Vs State of Kerala

Valsarajan Vs T.P.Babu

Laiju M.T. Vs State of Kerala