Allowed

A.Ranjith Arayanan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016Crl.MC/332/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an FIR registered against a lawyer alleging abuse and intimidation of a police officer. The court held the FIR was illegal as Section 294 IPC did not apply and the petitioner's actions were consistent with accompanying his wife to lodge a complaint at the police station.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. was allowed; the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it were quashed.

A.Ranjith Arayanan Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 332 of 2016 ()

¶6

-------------------------CRIME NO. 2327/2015 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

A. RANJITH NARAYANAN S/O.K.P.NARAYANAN NAIR (LATE), ADVOCATE, 12J, D.D.SILVER STONE, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 23.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 031.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 332 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE A. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM DATED 22.12.2015.

¶22

ANNEXURE B. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BEFORE THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA DATED 22.12.2015.

¶23

ANNEXURE C. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2016.

¶24

ANNEXURE D. TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.2327/2015 OF THE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 21.12.2015.

¶25

ANNEXURE E. TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.2327/2015 OF THE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 21.12.2015.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

¶29

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 332 of 2016

¶31

............................................................... Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

It seems that a crime has been registered as Crime No.2327/2015 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that when he had attempted to park his car bearing Reg.No.KL11-AF-2336 at the Police Station compound of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, the police man on duty had directed him to remove it and then the petitioner abused the policeman and intimidated him.

¶35

On going through Annexure D report, based on

¶36

which the crime has been registered, it seems that an offence under Section 294(b) cannot be attracted. The

¶37

CRL.M.C.No. 332 of 2016

¶38

-: 2 :-

¶39

petitioner is a lawyer by profession. The wife of the petitioner was also present along with the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident. It is too hard to believe that they had intimidated the policeman at the Police Station compound.

¶40

On the contrary, on going through the matter, it seems that the lawyer accompanied by his wife had reached the compound of the Police Station to prefer a complaint. In fact, they were intimidated and harassed. Annexure-D FIR

¶41

is, per se , illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶42

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure D FIR in Crime No.2327/2015 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner herein, and all further proceedings pursuant to it, are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶44

ul/-

¶45

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

A.Ranjith Arayanan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ranjith Arayanan v. the 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

Arshad.P.K Vs Shoshamma Shaji

Sosamma Vs State of Kerala

Fasal Ul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Ajimon Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Nirmala Vs State of Kerala