Partly allowed

Rathi Alias Lathika v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014Crl.MC/1439/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash cognizance of a complaint against accused 3 to 5, finding no overt acts alleged against them, while allowing the proceeding against accused 1 and 2 to continue.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in the protest complaint against accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Rathi Alias Lathika 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 P.D.RAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1439 of 2007 ( )

¶6

CC.NO. 1628/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED IN CC NO. 1628/2006 :

¶8

RATHI ALIAS LATHIKA

¶9

(WRONGLY SHOWAN AS LATHIKA ALIAS RATHI BY THE RESPONDENT IN HIS COMPLAINANT) WIFE OF NARAYANAN MOHAN DAS RESIDING AT N.M.NIVAS, KODUMAN, CHETTTATTINKARA ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N. MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

2. A. MURALEEDHARAN, DEEPU NIVAS, KODUMAN, CHITTATTIN KARA ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. B. ANILKUMAR,

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION ATTINGAL.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JUSTIN JACOB

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1439 of 2007 ( )

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A1	: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 23.6.2005 CMP NO. 5062/2005 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO. 762/2005 DATED 1.7.2005 OF THE ATTINGAL POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF STATEMENT OF R. RAVEENDRAN RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A4	COPY OF STATEMENT OF SUNILKUMAR RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A5	COPY OF STATEMENT OF SATHEESHAN RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A6	COPY OF STATEMENT OF VIJAYAMMA RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A7	COPY OF STATEMENT OF BARGAVAN RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A8	COPY OF STATEMENT OF V. BABU RECORDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A9	COPY OF PHOTOCOPY OF THE REFER CHARGE SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10.2.2006.
ANNEXURE A10	COPY OF PROTEST COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.2006 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
	MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL AS CC NO. 1628/2006.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.D. RAJAN, J.

Crl.M.C. No.1439 of 2007

¶29

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2014

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A10 complaint pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as C.C.No.1628/2006, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner is the 1^st accused in the above case, which was filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging offence punishable u/s.452, 427, 323, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC. The petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out in AnnexureA10 complaint. If trial is proceeded with Annexure-A10, it is a mere abuse of the process of Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

¶32

The 2^nd respondent's allegation in the lower court was

¶33

that the accused in the above case are his neighbours. On 14.6.2005 at 6 p.m. accused Nos.3 to 5 came in front of his house in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-16/A-1524 and

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07 2

¶35

parked the vehicle in front of his gate. At that time, the 2^nd respondent asked to remove the vehicle from the front of his gate. But, they informed that if he has any complaint, he has to report to the Police. Thereafter, they went to the house of A1 and after five minutes, A1 to A5 trespassed into his house. A1 beat on his left cheek and A2 threatened him with iron rod and thereafter, hit on the tea poi and broken the glass of the tea poi. As a result, he sustained heavy loss. Thereby, accused 1 to 5 committed the aforesaid offence. Aggrieved by that, the 2^nd respondent filed Annexure-A1 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as C.M.P.No.5062/2005, which was forwarded to Attingal Police for investigation. On getting Annexure-A1 complaint, Attingal Police registered Crime No.762/2005 u/s.452, 427, 323, 506 (ii) r/w.34 IPC. Subsequently, the case was referred as false by the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal and Annexure-A9 refer charge was submitted. In the circumstances, the 2^nd respondent filed Annexure-A10 protest complaint against that order. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed this Crl.M.C. On

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07

¶37

¶38

16.3.2010, this petition was dismissed. Against that, the petitioner filed Crl.Appeal Nos.894 & 895/2014 in SLP (Crl) Nos.6643 and 6644/2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to this Court to hear the petition filed by the petitioner u/s.482 Cr.P.C on merit.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner in Annexure-A10. A comparative reading of Annexure-A1 and A10 shows that the same facts in AnnexureA1 were reiterated in Annexure-A10. The Police after detailed investigation referred the matter as false. When new averments are not alleged in Annexure-A10, it will end in acquittal and mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor contended that prima facie case is made out against A1 and A2. He admitted that Attingal Police referred Annexure-A1 first complaint as false and no new facts were furnished in Annexure-A10 protest complaint.

¶41

Now the question that arises for consideration is

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07 4

¶43

whether this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent power of the High Court can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Apex Court

¶44

in State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] pointed out that:

¶45

“where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”.

¶46

A close reading of the documents shows that prima facie satisfaction of a case is sufficient to decline to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The 2^nd respondent's allegation in this case is that on 14.6.2005 at 6 p.m., A1 to A5 trespassed into his house and A1 beat the 2^nd respondent's left cheek and A2 intimidated him by waiving an iron rod and as a result, he became frightened and thereafter, A2 hit on the tea poi and as resutlt, the glass of tea poi was broken into pieces. He

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07

¶48

¶49

averred in his complaint that A3 to A5 being spectators, A1 and A2 committed the aforesaid act,according to their common intention. It is true that when a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. But, there is no no averment in Annexure-A10 that A1 and A2 committed the aforesaid overt act in furtherance of common intention of A3 to A5.

¶50

Analysing the facts and circumstances in this case, it is found that prima facie case is made out against A1 and A2 alone. No overt act is alleged against A3 to A5 in this case. Therefore, if accused Nos.3 to 5 are facing trial, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, inherent jurisdiction can be invoked against these three accused. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in Annexure-A10 against A3 to A5 is hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. But, this will not affect the case of A1 and A2 pending before Judicial First

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07

¶52

¶53

Class Magistrate Court-1, Attingal. Since the matter is long pending, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose the

¶54

matter at the earliest, after giving opportunity to both parties.

¶55

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is disposed.

¶56

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶57

acd

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.1439/07 7

Rathi Alias Lathika v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathi Alias Lathika 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy Vs Prakash K.Paul

Kumaradas Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Ibrahim Vs the Manager, Union Bank of India

Purushothaman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

James Joseph Vs Venugopalan

Praveen and Others Vs State of Kerala and Other