Allowed

Nejimon P.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2017Crl.MC/315/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a Single Judge Bench allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against accused persons involved in alleged instances of criminal intimidation and assault against a police officer, disposing of the matter on merits without examining evidentiary issues.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 315 of 2017) was disposed of; the challenged proceedings were allowed to continue before the court below.

Nejimon P.M Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 315 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 146/2014 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM CRIME NO. 2190/2013 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED IN CC NO.146/14:

¶8

1. NEJIMON P.M AGED 39 YEARS BUSINESS, S/O.MAKKAR, RESIDING AT PERINGATTU HOSE, P.O.KOOVALLOOR, PIN: 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHAIDA NEJI W/O.NEJI MON, AGED 30 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PERINGATTU HOUSE, P.O.KOOVALLOOR, PIN: 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.ASAFALI

¶11

SRI.P.RAHIM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

STATE OF KERALA (STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 315 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/11/2013 ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 19/11/2013 IN CRIME NO.2190/13 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 341, 353, 294(B), R/W 34 IPC

¶20

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25/11/2013 CHARGED SHEETED U/S.341, 353, 294 (B), 506(I) R/W IPC

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

True Copy /

P A to Judge

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

Crl.M.C.No.315 of 2017

¶27

=================

¶28

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners stand indicted as accused in C.C.No.146 of 2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam arising from Crime No.2190 of 2013 of Kothamangalam Police Station for offences punishable under sections 341, 353, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶31

The crux of the allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2013 at 11 a.m., de facto complainant, who is a civil police officer, had gone to the business premises of the second respondent in connection with a petition enquiry. It is alleged that in the course of his exercising duty, he was threatened and acts which were intended to deter him from discharging his official functions were committed by the petitioners, husband and wife. Thereupon, he is stated to have returned and lodged the complaint.

¶32

The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even going by the available materials and admitted facts, the various offences alleged against the petitioners herein are not sustainable. It was further contended that

¶33

Crl.M.C.315/17

¶34

¶35

ingredients constituting such offences are not made out from the complaint itself.

¶36

Essentially, the question is confined to what transpired on the date and time of the alleged incident. This is especially a matter of evidence to be established by the prosecution by the oral testimony of the de facto complainant and eye witnesses, if any. Having regard to this, exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, I am not inclined to go into that aspect which largely depends on the quality of the evidence to be tendered. In the circumstance, I am of the view that this Crl.M.C is not sustainable.

¶37

Reserving the right of the petitioner herein to agitate all the above contentions before the court below and to seek for discharge at the appropriate stage, Crl.M.C is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶40

Sbna/9/2/17

¶41

True Copy / P A to Judge

Nejimon P.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nejimon P.M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asharaf Vs State of Kerala

Rigil Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Aboobackker Baseer Vs the State of Kerala

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala