The Kerala High Court quashed the final report and further proceedings against a student accused of assault. The court held the act was trivial under Section 95 I.P.C. considering the relationship and circumstances, exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1032/2015 against the petitioner are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017/5TH SRAVANA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 3558 of 2016 ()
CC 1032/2015 of JUDL.M.F.C.-I,ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 42/2014 OF VANITHA CELL, EKM , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ARSHA AGED 26, D/O. RAJENDRAN. GRALMA, KAZHUNADU VILLAGE, VATTAPPARAKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
AGED 25, D/O. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, PADIPPURA HOUSE, VETTOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695141
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. K. PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-072017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.3558/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEX.A : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.934/2014 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION
ANNEX.B : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRM IN CRIME NO.42/2014 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION.
ANNEX.C : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.42/2014 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
PA to Judge
C.R.
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.M.C. No.3558 of 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1032/2015 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are offences
punishable under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C.
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 2 :-
complainant in connection with the marriage proposal of the de-facto complainant . A relative of the petitioner was proposed as bride to the de-facto complainant . When the de-facto complainant asked about the same to the petitioner, the petitioner pleaded ignorance. This led to the quarrel between them. In the quarrel, the petitioner beat the de-facto complainant . She cried aloud. Thereafter, also, there was fight between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner.
the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in the above case.
appearance for the 2nd respondent, who is the de-facto
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 3 :-
complainant . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
including the de-facto complainant . It appears that the defacto complainant and another witness, namely, Varoma had given statement to the police about the incident.
offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 4 :-
cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 5 :-
wrongs or of offences of trivial character.
observed thus:-
“ Whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act was done, and other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm. It cannot be judged solely by the measure of physical or other injury the act causes.”
further observed thus:-
“ A soldier assaulting his colonel, a policeman assaulting his Superintendent, or a pupil beating his teacher, commit offences, the heinousness of
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 6 :-
which cannot be determined merely by the actual injury suffered by the officer or the teacher, for the assault would be wholly subversive of discipline. An assault by one child on another, or even by a grown up person on another, which causes injury may still be regarded as so slight, having regard to the way and station of life of the parties, relation between them, situation in which the parties are placed, and other circumstances in which harm is caused, that the victim ordinarily may not complain of the harm.”
It is now settled law that whether an act, which amounts to an offence, is trivial or not, would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the relationship between the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act was done, the situation in which the parties are placed and other related circumstances. There cannot be any absolute standard or degree of harm which may be
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 7 :-
regarded as slight that person of ordinary sense and tamper would not complain of the harm.
12 . In this case, the petitioner and the de-facto
complainant were students studying in the same class in the same college. They were staying in the same hostel. They were also room-mates. They were doing L.L.M. The statement would show that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant were close friends. The de-facto complainant sustained only trivial physical injury. It appears from the statements that the assault was not with any intention or pre-meditation. Considering the life of the parties as students, the relationship between the students, the situation in which the parties were placed and the other related circumstances in which the harm was caused, I am of the view that the act of the petitioner
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 8 :-
falls within the ambit of Section 95 of I.P.C. as the victim ordinarily would not have complained of the harm under the above circumstances as the harm caused to the de-
facto complainant was trivial in nature. In the said circumstances, it is only just and proper to quash the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.1032/2015 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/31.7.2017
The lower court case number “ C.C.No.1032/2015” occurring in the first line of paragraph 1 at page 1 and in the 20th line of the
Crl.M.C.3558/2016
-: 9 :-
paragraph 12 at page 8 of the final order dated 27.7.2017 in Crl.M.C. No.3558/2016 is corrected and substituted as “ C.C.No.1032/2014 ' as per order dated 2.2.2018 in Crl.M.A. No.13674/2017 in Crl.M.C. No.3558/2016.
Sd/- Registrar ( Judicial)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the act of the petitioner can be considered an offence under Section 95 I.P.C. given the trivial nature of the harm and the relationship between the parties.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the quashing of the final report and further proceedings under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Veeda Menesez v. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan and anotherRelied on¶8
(AIR 1966 SC 1773) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Arsha
State of Kerala
Sara B. Ismail
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
B. Sudheendra Kumar
Parties & counsel
