Dismissed

Bibin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2668/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. The court held that disputed factual questions preclude intervention at this stage and directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to appear before the Magistrate to seek bail, to be considered on date of surrender.

Bibin Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2668 of 2016 () --------------------------ST 5143/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 2063/2014 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

1. BIBIN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

2. SIBIN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶12

2. PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.MAMAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2668 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A:	CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 2063/2014 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE B:	CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2063/14 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE C:	CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2012 IN OP.1492/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT-L, IRINJALAKKUDA
ANNEXURE D:	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1978/14 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE E:	TRUE COPY OF OP.878/14 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA
ANNEXURE F:	TRUE COPY OF OP.NO. 1053/2014 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA
ANNEXURE G:	TRUE COPY OF THE OP. 1058/15 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 2668 of 2016

¶26

- - - - Dated 20^th June, 2016

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.T.No.5143 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate

¶30

of 1^st Class, Kodungallur.

¶31

2.The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.2063 of 2014 of Mathilakam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 (1) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶32

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 26.8.2014 at about 7.45 pm the 2^nd respondent was assaulted by his sons on

¶33

his refusal to hand over the horoscope of the 1^st petitioner.

¶34

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2668 of 2016 -2-

¶37

petitioners that at the instance of the mother of the petitioners, a crime has been registered against the 2^nd respondent under Section 498A of the IPC. It is also pointed out that the 2^nd respondent is a money lender by profession and no reliance could have been placed on his statement so as to implicate the petitioners.

¶38

6.The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contentions and submitted that this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') will not be justified in sifting and weighing the materials at the initial stage. It is also pointed out that prima facie materials have been laid before the court below and this Court will not be justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code.

¶39

7.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the said respondent was assaulted by his sons and the contentions raised for quashing of final report are trivial.

¶40

Crl.M.C. No. 2668 of 2016 -3-

¶41

8.On perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions advanced at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.P. Kapur V State of Panjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V Mohd. Saraful Haq 2005 SCC (Cr.) 93.

¶42