Partly allowed

Shaju v. Prabhan

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Crl.MC/968/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the accused police officers to withdraw their application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court permitted the withdrawal but directed the Principal Sessions Judge to consider the petitioners' contentions regarding lack of sanction and discharge.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw petition with liberty to apply for discharge; Sessions Judge directed to consider contentions raised.

Shaju Vs Prabhan — 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

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 968 of 2014

¶6

CRL.M.C.NO.2375 OF 2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 13-07-2012

¶7

CP.NO.15/2011 IN M.P.NO.806/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KOCHI

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1. SHAJU,

¶10

CIVIL POLICE OFFICER,

¶11

OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POST,

¶12

KOCHI, (NOW WORKING AS CIVIL POLICE OFFICER,

¶13

POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661).

¶14

2. MUSTHAFA,

¶15

CIVIL POLICE OFFICER,

¶16

OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POST, KOCHI. (NOW WORKING AS GRADE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF

¶17

POLICE, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOCHI-682 006).

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶19

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶20

1. PRABHAN,

¶21

S/O.MANIYAN, NIKATHITHARA VEEDU, PUTHUVYPU DESOM, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 508.

¶22

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶23

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Msd.

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 968 of 2014

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS M.P.NO.806/2010 IN THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - 1, KOCHI. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW1. ANNEXURE A2(A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW2. ANNEXURE A2(B): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW3. ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - 1, KOCHI IN C.P.NO.15/11 DATED 14/11/2011. ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.2375/2012 DATED 13/07/2012. ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2013 COMMITTING THE CASE BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.968 of 2014

¶37

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This is an application filed by the accused in S.C.No.637/2013 (C.P.No.15/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi) of Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the 'Code').

¶40

It is alleged in the petition that the case was taken on file on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi and after taking sworn statement the complainant and the witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 294 (b) 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(iii) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.968 of 2014 2

¶42

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. It was converted into C.P. No.15/2011 and it was committed to court of sessions and is now pending as S.C.No.637/2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam. According to the petitioners since the act alleged were done in their official duty, sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required and no offence under Section 3 (iii) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been attracted as well. So they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief.

¶43

Call for the entire records pertaining to the preference of Annexure A-1 complaint, and Annexure A-3 & A-5 Orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Kochi in C.P. No.15/11 and QUASH the same, for the reach of ends of justice.

¶44

Grant such other relief's this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

Award costs of the proceedings.

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.968 of 2014 3

¶47

After arguing the case for some time the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the application for discharge before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam where the case was now pending and raising all contentions raised by him in this petition and also pray for giving direction to the Session Judge to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶48

The above submission of the counsel for the petitioners is recorded and permission is granted to the petitioners to withdraw the petition with liberty to apply for discharge before the Principle Sessions Judge, Ernakulam before whom the case is now pending as SC No.637/2013. If the petitioners files an application, then the learned Sessions Judge is directed to consider the contentions raised by him in the petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶49

With the above direction and observation this petition

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.968 of 2014 4

¶51

is disposed of.

¶52

Hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioners and also communicate the same to the concerned court immediately.

¶53

Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶54

MJL

Shaju v. Prabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju v. Prabhan

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

V.Viajayan Vs P.P.Zainuddin

Akash Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakar Boleyar Singh Vs the Director General of Police

K.K.Vikas Vs State of Kerala

Eliyamma Vs the Forest Range Officer

Mohammed Rafi Vs Mohammed Naufal