Allowed

Deepa Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Sept 2018Crl.MC/5580/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case sought to quash criminal proceedings where the complainant alleged the petitioner obstructed a police officer and threatened him under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The Court quashed the case citing the unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The Court allowed the petition and directed quashing of the charges, though it reserved its final

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1685 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam are quashed. Petition allowed.

Deepa Prasad Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 15TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5580 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST CC 1685/2016 of J.F.C.M-VIII, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 1659/2015 OF Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

DEEPA PRASAD AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GIRIDHARAN P. PRASADAN (H), PINARAYI, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670741.

¶10

BY ADV. N.C.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK SR.PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C. 5580/18

-:2:-

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1685 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam. He is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The allegation against the petitioner is that on a police officer asking him to remove the motor cycle which he had kept on the road causing obstruction to the traffic, he got agitated and threatened the police officer and thus prevented the police officer from discharging his official duty. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the case was registered with malicious intention and the allegations are false and that the facts of the case do not attract the offence.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

The date of occurrence is 22.12.2015. The case was registered on the same day. But it is seen from Annexure 1 First Information Statement that it reached the court only on 30.12.2015. This inordinate delay is not properly explained.

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

Crl.M.C. 5580/18

¶23

Though I cannot say that the case is false, having regard to the above fact, I am inclined to quash the proceedings.

¶24

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.1685 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam are quashed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶27

vps 10/9

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1659/2015 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION.

¶31

ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1659/2015 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶33

NIL

¶34

/TRUE COPY/

¶35

VPS PS TO JUDGE

Deepa Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Prasad v. the 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

Najjaf C.K Vs State of Kerala

Ullikkovvall Rafeeque @ Muhammed Rafeeque Vs State of Kerala

Sajikumar K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sudhir Mahajan Vs M/S. Dimensions Cybertech India Pvt. Ltd.

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala