Allowed

Savithri Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4031/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 415 and 420 IPC, the High Court of Kerala examined the scope and exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Court found no prima facie case for quashing and refused to interfere, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashment of proceedings was allowed. The petitioner is directed to raise contentions before the trial court, which is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Savithri Vijayan Vs 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4031 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.547/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR. CRIME NO. 364/2011 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

SAVITHRI VIJAYAN,

¶9

W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, ANTHYALAMKUDAM, ATHALUR POST, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, SRI.ANILKUMAR V. (VAZHARAMBIL), SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:-:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, POST ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 541.

¶14

3. SATHEESH,

¶15

S/O.RAJAMANI, C.K.M. HOUSE, KILIYALLUR, CHERAMANGALAM, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 703.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4031 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.364/2011 OF THE ALATHUR POLICE STATION DATED 01.07.2011.

¶23

A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02.07.2011 IN CRIME NO.364/2011 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION.

¶24

A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.364/2011 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION DATED 27.09.2011.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.4031 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

1.The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.547 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur. She is being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC.

¶36

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

¶37

3.The learned counsel vehemently contends that the allegations in the complaint militate with the statement of the de facto complainant in the statement furnished to the Police under Section 161 of the Code. According to the learned Counsel, this would destroy the credibility of the witness. It is further submitted that

¶38

Crl.M.C.4031/2016 2

¶39

the allegation that there was monetary transaction between the parties is also not connect. Profuse reliance is placed on a catena of judgments of the Apex Court wherein the powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code is delineated and referring to the records produced along with the final report, it is contended that this is a fit case in which the proceedings are to be brought to a premature termination.

¶40

4.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions and reminded the Court of the scope and ambit of powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and contended that at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of various decision of the Apex Court .

¶41

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon

¶42

Crl.M.C.4031/2016 3

¶43

the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

¶44

6.The question, however, is when and under what situation, the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial.

¶45

7.In this context it will be relevant to remind oneself of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a

¶46

Crl.M.C.4031/2016 4

¶47

prosecution and brings about its closure without a fullfledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is also settled that, if on taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, no offence was made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under S.482

¶48

CrPC. ( See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi , (1983 (1) SCC 1) ; Soundaram N V P.K. Ponnuraj and Another ( 2014 (10) SCC 616 ).

¶49

8.After having heard the rival submissions and after persuing the prosecution records, it does not appear to me that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing or

¶50

Crl.M.C.4031/2016

¶51

¶52

proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused.

¶53

9.The petitioner is directed to raise all her contentions before the trial Court and the Court below is directed to take all earnest efforts to expeditiously dispose of the matter having regard to the fact that the Crime is of the year 2011.

¶54

The petition is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶56

vps

Savithri Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savithri Vijayan v. State of Kerala

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

Thankamma Vs State of Kerala

Bhamakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Kalader Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala