Allowed

M.S.Anil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2018Crl.MC/5992/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Kerala High Court quashed proceedings under C.C.No.663/2015. The court held that allegations under Sections 294(b) and 353 IPC were not attracted, leaving only non-cognizable Section 506 IPC, making the proceedings liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.663 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

M.S.Anil Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5992 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST CC 663/2015 of J.M.F.C.-III,NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

CRIME NO. 726/2014 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

M.S.ANIL S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SANKARA VILASOM, NEAR MARKET, MARAYAMUTTOM DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.N.P.ASHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶13

2 SUGATHAN AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PANICKER, 'THIRUVONAM', PLAVILA, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5992 of 2017 2

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.663 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Neyyattinkara. He is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 294(b),

¶19

353 and 506 IPC. The second respondent is the informant victim. He was the SI of police at Marayamutton Police Station on the relevant date. According to the prosecution on the date of occurrence he was sitting in a police jeep along with two persons who were taken into custody when

¶20

the petitioner went to him uttered obscene words and threatened him and thus prevented him from discharging his duties as a public servant. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the allegations are false and the facts of the case do not attract any offence.

¶21

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 5992 of 2017 3

¶23

One of the offences shown in the Final

¶24

Report is the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. I have gone through the statement of the second

¶25

respondent recorded by himself, on the basis of which the case was registered. The words

¶26

allegedly uttered by the petitioner are not obscene. So Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted. Though it is stated in the FIR that the petitioner prevented the second respondent from discharging his duty as a public servant, it is not stated how

¶27

he was prevented from discharging his duties.

¶28

There is no allegation that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to the second respondent. Section 353 IPC also is not

¶29

attracted. The facts of the case attract only

¶30

Section 506 IPC, which is a non cognizable offence. Registration of the case and the investigation were illegal. The proceedings in

¶31

the trial court are liable to be quashed.

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 5992 of 2017 4

¶33

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.663 of 2015 on the file of

¶34

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III,

¶35

Neyyattinkara are quashed.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

MC/11.12.18

Crl.MC.No. 5992 of 2017 5

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.726/2014 DATED 26.12.2014 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B ATTESTED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.663/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY ADVOCATE KOVALAM B.AJITHKUMAR TO THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER DATED 26.5.2014. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT DATED 20.5.2015. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT DATED 18.5.2015.

¶44

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

NIL

¶46

¶47

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

M.S.Anil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Anil 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

Siddique 2 Siyad Vs Aneesh T.M

Rajesh Khanna Vs State of Kerala

VELAYUDHAN,S/O.NANU,C.NO.6810,C.P.,TVM. Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Shaji Vs State of Kerala

K.S Shaji Vs State of Kerala

A.M.Manju Vs State of Kerala