Allowed

M.M.Abdul Salam v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016Crl.MC/990/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the 8th accused for alleged unlawful assembly. The court held that the final report failed to establish unlawful assembly and doubts existed regarding the petitioner's identification.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 1867/2012 are quashed.

M.M.Abdul Salam 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 990 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC 1867/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶7

CRIME NO.461/2012 OF THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:

¶9

M.M.ABDUL SALAM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD,RESIDING AT MANNAMPILLY HOUSE, MARAMPILLY.P.O, ALUVA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.KANNAN

¶11

SMT.S.SIMY SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

1.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, PERUMBAVOOR - 682 034.

¶14

2.THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA.M.K.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 990 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE-A1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.461/2012 OF THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PERUMBAVOOR.
ANNEXURE-A3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN CC.1867/2012 FROM THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERUMBAVOOR.
ANNEXURE-A4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
ANNEXURE-A5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER PERTAINING TO ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	ANNEXURES: NIL ---------- //TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶23

mbr/

¶24

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 990 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1.This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of

¶29

Criminal Procedure .

¶30

2.The petitioner is the 8^th accused in CCNo 1867 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class , Perumbavoor . He along with the others have been indicted for having committed offence punishable under section 143, 145 , 147 , 283 read with section 149 o fthe Indian Penal Code .

¶31

3.The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the accused nos. 1 and 2 along with certain identifiable persons, unlawfully assembled in front of the Vazhakkulam Village Office building under the leadership of the named accused, and they are alleged to have blocked the entrance of the Village office and also the entry of

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 990 of 2015 2

¶33

general public and employees disregarding the lawful orders of the Police.

¶34

4.The specific allegation is that the agitation was conducted by the named accused and others against the price rice and other policies of the State and Central Governments. It is also borne out that the agitation was conducted by the Kerala Karshaka Sangham, Vazhakkulam Unit.

¶35

5.Investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thadiyattuparamba Police Station and final report was laid before the Jurisdictional Court on 01.10.12.

¶36

6.The petitioner who is working as the Senior Superintendent in the Electrical Division Office, Perumbavoor finds himself arrayed as the 8^th accused in the final report.

¶37

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on Annexure-A5, the Attendance Register of the Electrical Division, Perumbavoor to contend that he was present in his office all through and could not have been present at

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 990 of 2015 3

¶39

the scene of crime on that day. It is pointed out that the specific allegation is that the petitioner was present from 9 a.m. on 28.9.12 to 10 a.m. on the next day (i.e. on 29.09.12) in front of the village office. The learned counsel also refers to the final report and submits that the occupation of the petitioner has been stated to be a Coolie. According to the learned counsel, this is purely a case of mistaken identification. The learned counsel also submits that even if the allegations admitted to its entirety, the offence under Section 283 would not be attracted. The assembly was not unlawful according to the learned counsel and the records would not reveal that the Section 141 of the IPC is attracted.

¶40

8.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has filed

¶41

a detailed statement in which it is stated that the statements of CWS 1 to 3, who were questioned by the Investigating Officer revealed that the petitioner was also present at the scene of crime and was involved in the

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 990 of 2015

¶43

¶44

commission of the offence.

¶45

9.I have considered the rival submissions. I have perused Annexure A1, FIR and Annexure A2, final report as well.

¶46

10.It appears from the allegations that the agitation was conducted by certain persons in front of the village office between 9 a.m. on 28.09.12 to 10 a.m. on 29.09.12. I also take note of the fact that the agitation was conducted by the Kerala Karshaka Sangham, Vazhakulam unit against the policies of the State and Central Policies.

¶47

11.It is not borne out from the Annexure-A2 , final report that the accused had unlawfully assembled in front of village office. There are no materials to conclude that the the assembly was unlawful. Annexure A 2 report does not reveal that the five situations covered by section 141 of the Code has been satisfied . The records reveal that the alleged blockage of the Village office was as a protest against the price rise. It is also borne out from AnnexureA1, FIR that only two named persons are mentioned.

¶48

Crl.M.C. No. 990 of 2015 5

¶49

Thereference to the petitioner as a Coolie , and that too aftecr the investigation was completed will also cast serious doubts . There is also no no reason to disbelieve thenetries in Annexure-A5, Attendance Register, which is not specifically denied by the State though the same has been produced along with this petition.

¶50

12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings now pending as C.C. No. 1867/12 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, cannot be sustained.

¶51

This petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner stands quashed.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶53

SKS

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.M.Abdul Salam v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Abdul Salam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs Roopesh

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar K. Vs the State of Kerala

Siemens Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs Ibrahim Haji