Allowed

Muraleedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016Crl.MC/3631/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings against the sole accused under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that his implication was an afterthought as the original complaint omitted his presence despite investigations failing to identify other accused.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.79 of 2013 will stand quashed.

Muraleedharan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3631 of 2014

¶6

CC 79/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MURALEEDHARAN,

¶9

ADVOCATE, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, SREERAM, ADUKKATH BAIL, TALIPPADUPPU, KASARAGOD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION-673121.

¶13

2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

3. JAYAKUMAR K., TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KASARAGOD-673123.

¶15

R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3631 of 2014

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------

¶21

ANNEXURE I- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO. 347/2012. ANNEXURE IICOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT. ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶23

NIL. / TRUE COPY /

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶25

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶27

----------------------------------------

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.3631 of 2014

¶29

-----------------------------------------

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod. He stands indicted for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 323, 506(ii) read with 149 of the IPC.

¶33

Prosecution allegation as per the charge is that on 17.3.2012 at 10.45 p.m., about 50 persons identifiable by sight trespassed into the KSRTC depot in the Kasaba Village at Kasaragod and attempted to affix stickers on KSRTC buses. When they were restrained by the Security Officers, they are alleged to have assaulted the security men.

¶34

3.On the next day of the incident, a complaint was submitted by the Inspector, Kasaragod Depot before

¶35

Crl.M.C.3631/2014 2

¶36

the Station House Officer based on which Crime No.342 of 2012 was registered against 50 BMS workmen. Annexure-II is the complaint. Later investigation was completed and final report was laid before the jurisdictional court.

¶37

4.In the final report the only person arrayed as accused is the petitioner herein. Along with the final report, it appears that Annexure-II report was submitted before the learned Magistrate stating that none of the persons who had trespassed inside the KSRTC bus stand and had assaulted the security persons could be identified . Their names were sought to be deleted from the final report.

¶38

5.Annexure-I final report is sought to be quashed in this

¶39

petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

Crl.M.C.3631/2014

¶42

¶43

7.It is submitted by the learned counsel that though the

¶44

FIR was registered on the next day of the incident, on

¶45

the basis of a complaint filed by the Assistant Transport Officer, there is not even a whisper about the petitioner. The crime was registered against 50 BMS workers. None of these persons could be identified and it was in the said circumstances that a report was submitted on 25.11.2012 along with the charge seeking for their deletion. According to the learned counsel, a person who has nothing to do with the offence has been roped in much later to hide the flaws in investigation. Though the petitioner is stated to be known to the witnesses, it is incredulous that they omitted to name him at the time of filing the complaint. His implication later by the investigating agency is clearly vexatious and an afterthought is the submission. The learned Counsel also profusely relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Willie (William)

¶46

Crl.M.C.3631/2014

¶47

¶48

Slaney v. State of M.P ., (AIR 1956 SC 116), Amar Singh v. State of Punjab , (AIR 1987 SC 826) and Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan , (AIR 1976 SC 1084) to bring home the subtle nuances of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to contend that the petitioner being the only accused in the charge he could not be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC especially when, only a vicarious role is alleged against him.

¶49

8.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reason to interfere with the prosecution proceedings. However, it is admitted that a report was submitted along with the final report deleting the 50 BMS workers who were arrayed as accused in the FIR since their identity could not be fixed. It is further contended that

¶50

the complainant had omitted to name the petitioner as the person heading the unlawful assembly, but that does not prevent the Investigating agency in

¶51

Crl.M.C.3631/2014

¶52

¶53

proceeding against him, if later his role is brought out . 9.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone

¶54

through the materials on record.

¶55

10.It is based on a written complaint filed by the Assistant Transport officer that the crime was registered. In the said complaint, it is specifically mentioned that about 50 BMS workers had trespassed inside the bus stand and had assaulted the security officers. One of the security officer had fallen down and had sustained an injury to his left hand. The injured were shifted to the General Hospital and it was thereafter that the informant had gone to the Police Station and had given a written complaint. The name or presence of the petitioner is conspicuously absent in the complaint. All that is mentioned is that a group of BMS workers had trespassed into the bus stand late at night. However, in the subsequent statements it has been mentioned that the petitioner was also present

¶56

Crl.M.C.3631/2014 6

¶57

along with the other workers but this fact was omitted

¶58

to be mentioned in the original complaint by

¶59

inadvertence.

¶60

11.It is in this context that the report filed by the Investigating officer along with the final report is to be appreciated. He reports that he has not been able to trace out or identify any of the 50 BMS workers who had trespassed and assaulted the security personnel. Pertinently the overacts are all directed against the men who were not identified. When the presence of the petitioner is by itself doubtful at the scene of crime, I am of the view that his implication vicariously for the acts committed by the others, cannot be countenanced.

¶61

12.After having given my anxious consideration to the facts of the instant case, it appears to me that the petitioner was roped in later as an afterthought. Summoning of an accused is a serious matter and I

¶62

Crl.M.C.3631/2014

¶63

¶64

find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that, on facts, it would work out gross injustice to the petitioner . Having regard to the above, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed .

¶65

This petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod will stand quashed.

¶66

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶67

vps

Muraleedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Ramla A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ramla A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Lijin T Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rahees P.H @ Rahees Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shamsul Ameen Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala