Allowed

Roy v. Prakash K.Paul

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014Crl.MC/961/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner-sub-inspector under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that the complaint failed to disclose prima facie case for offences against him, constituting abuse of process, while retaining proceedings against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all proceedings against the petitioner in the complaint while leaving proceedings against other accused intact.

Roy Vs Prakash K.Paul — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 961 of 2010

¶6

CC NO.349/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ROY,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.K.P.GOPALAN, 'SREESAILAM', KARUVISSERY.P.O, KOZHIKODE. (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUDIYANMALA, NOW WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. PRAKASH K.PAUL,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, K.J.KIZHAKKAYIL, ADVOCATE, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUTTIKOL DESOM, KUTTIKOL.P.O, TALIPARAMBA TALUK.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶14

SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.961/2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTIONS 166, 167, 218 & 120 B IPC.

¶22

ANNEX.2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEFORE THE CONCERNED MAGISTRATE DELETING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506 (ii), 322, 308, 394 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.D. RAJAN, J.

Crl.M.C. No.961 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-1 complaint filed against the petitioner before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, and Crime No.39/2009 of Kudiyanmala Police Station for offence u/s.342, 294(b), 506(ii) and 120B r/w 34 IPC against all accused and Sections 166, 167, 218 against 1^st and 2^nd accused and Section 109 IPC against accused 3 to 5, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The above complaint was filed by the 1^st respondent, who is a practising lawyer at Thaliparamba. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kudiyanmala Police Station, compelled the 1^st respondent to settle a case registered at the instance of the 1^st respondent against some other accused persons. The investigation in the complaint was

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.961/10 2

¶33

conducted and final report was submitted by the C.I. of Police, Alakkode before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, which is pending there. The above case was initially investigated by the ASI of Police and subsequently, further investigation was made by C.I. of Police, Alakkode. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate of Judicial First Class, Thaliparamba took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner mechanically without considering the relevant ingredients of the offences. There was no pleadings in the complaint to substantiate the criminal act committed by the petitioner. When no ingredients attracting the aforesaid offence were found in the complaint, the trial of the case is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this petition.

¶34

The 1^st respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint alleging that on 28.3.2009 while he was travelling from Thaliparamba to Kudiyanmala in his Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KL 30 A 6561, when he reached at Oduvally, a motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner, by overtaking a bus, hit against the 1^st respondent's vehicle. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. After the incident, the

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.961/10 3

¶36

rider of the motorcycle, without stopping the motorcycle, had driven away from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, after the incident, when the 1^st respondent returned to his house at 11.30 a.m. he found the alleged motorcycle involved in the incident and at that time while taking number of the motorcycle, accused 3, 4 and 5 assaulted him. As a result, he sustained injuries. Subsequently, on 2.4.2009 at 7 p.m., 2^nd accused summoned the 1^st respondent in the police station and recorded his statement. After that, the 1^st accused/petitioner came there and took the 1^st respondent and witnesses in his room and at that time, accused Nos.3 to 5 were also present there. The petitioner talked about the case and made a suggestion for settlement. Thereafter, the 2^nd incident was occurred. For that, the 1^st respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the investigation was conducted by the ASI of Police and he referred Section 324, 308, 394 and 506 r/w.34 IPC. Subsequently, he filed Annexure-2 report. Further investigation was conducted by the C.I. of Police, Alakkode.

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.961/10 4

¶39

The petitioner was on duty in another place at Kannavam Police Station in connection with the law and order situation as per the direction of the S.P., Kannur and therefore, the 1^st respondent's allegation that the petitioner was on duty on the date of incident is false. If trial is proceeded with the aforesaid Annexure-1 complaint, it is a mere abuse of the process of Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other accused. If proceedings against the petitioner is quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction, it will affect the credibility of the remaining part of the case.

¶41

The inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the specific grounds made thereunder. According to Section 482, the High Court can invoke such inherent power 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 any Court or otherwise to secure the

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.961/10

¶43

¶44

ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court cannot ordinarily conduct an enquiry whether any evidence adduced is sufficient for a conviction or the evidence supporting the allegation is reliable or not. The only consideration that can be given at this stage is the satisfaction of the prima facie case. Apex Court 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

I have considered the avements in Annexure-1

¶47

complaint. In Annexure-1 complaint, several allegations are made against the petitioner and other accused. It is true that the 1^st respondent is a practising lawyer at Thaliparamba and he might have visited the Police Station in connection with the investigation in Crime No.39/2009. Annexure-2 is the report submitted by the ASI of Police, Kudiyanmala Police Station before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba by deleting the offences u/s. 506(ii), 324, 308, 394 of IPC. The

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.961/10

¶49

¶50

remaining portion of the investigation was entrusted to C.I. of Police, Alakkode. No ingredients attracting offence u/s.166,167, 218 & 120B were furnished against the petitioner. If that be the position, prima facie case against the petitioner was not properly made out in the complaint. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I quash all the proceedings against the petitioner in Annexure-1 complaint. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of continuing the proceedings against the other accused.

¶51

Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observation.

¶52

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶53

acd

¶54

Crl.M.C.No.961/10 7

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.961/10 8

Roy v. Prakash K.Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy v. Prakash K.Paul

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

Mirza Thaslam Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Danavan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Pradeep Anand C.S. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kumaradas Vs State of Kerala

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

Rathi Alias Lathika Vs State of Kerala