Dismissed

Jayakumar v. Sub Inspector

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018Crl.MC/2545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act. The bench held that the petitioner, having already entered an appearance in the lower court, should not bypass the trial magistrate, and the matter should be disposed of in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings in CC No. 1320/2016 was dismissed.

Jayakumar Vs Sub Inspector — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2545 of 2018

¶6

C.C.NO. 1320/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

JAYAKUMAR, AGED 52, S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY MENON, MURALI NANDANA KALA NILAYAM, SEKARIPURAM, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, PALAKKAD.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, S.C ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS, S.C R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

13.06.2018

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2545 of 2018

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT (FINAL REPORT) IN CC NO. 1320/2016 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶21

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/9/2016 PASSED BY

¶22

THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C NO. 1991/2016.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

13.06.2018

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2545 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶34

The petitioner is the accused in CC No. 1320 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam. He is charged with having committed the offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act. His prayer is to quash the proceedings. The ground is that the facts of the case do not attract the offence.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶36

Standing Counsel for the Indian Railways and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Ordinarily, the remedy of an accused whose case is that the materials relied on by the prosecution do not disclose commission of the offence alleged against him is to plead for discharge. In exceptional cases this court can entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this case, the petitioner has already entered appearance

¶38

..2..

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 2545 of 2018

¶40

in the trial court. He hails from Palakkad. The lower court is located at Ottappalam in the very same district. There is no reason why he should be allowed to bypass the magistrate. He has not given any explanation for rushing to this court which is far away from his place of residence bypassing the learned magistrate.

¶41

Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Railways has brought to my notice the admission of the petitioner in the Crl.M.C. that he is doing business as alleged by the prosecution. The relevant statement is this: “... A minimal service charge of Rs. 10 to 30 was charged on the passengers for which income tax is paid...”

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on identical facts this court has quashed the proceedings in another case. He may rely on it in the trial court, if he is so advised.

¶43

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶46

bka/12.06.2018

Jayakumar v. Sub Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar v. Sub Inspector

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

Betsy Elizabeth Jaison Vs State of Kerala

Jaison John Vs State of Kerala

V. Lijith Vs State of Kerala

Malanadu Cements & Allied Products Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jeemon @ G.S.Varghese Vs State of Kerala