Dismissed

Shahina K.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019Crl.MC/2700/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings wherein the applicants were accused of offences under IPC 294(b) read with IPC 34 and the SC/ST Act. The court directed the applicant to raise grounds before the Sessions Judge under Section 227 of CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed; applicants directed to approach the Sessions Judge for holding a trial.

Shahina K.K. Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2700 OF 2018

¶6

SC 865/2016 OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.1962/2014 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2

¶9

1 SHAHINA K.K.

¶10

W/O. RAJEEV, AGED 43 YEARS, FLAT NO.-C-5, YERIK GARDEN, SAINIK ASHRAMAM ROAD, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2 LEO KURIYAKKOSE S/O. KURIYAKKOSE, AGED 28 YEARS, EDAKKARA HOUSE, KANNANCHERRY MUKALBAGAM, VENGOOR KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR ALI

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

1 STATE REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN. SR PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.2700/18

ORDER

Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in S.C.865/2016 pending before the court of session, Ernakulam division. They are the accused in the said case. The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Sec 294(b) of IPC read with IPC 34 and under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, the SC/ST (PoA) Act).

¶23

Heard Sri.Mansoor Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.C.M.Prabhakaran, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶24

One of the grounds taken in the petition is that no offence is attracted to implicate the petitioners. I perused annexe-A1 which is a copy of the FI statement given by the first informant. The words allegedly used against the first informant are stated in the FI statement. Those

¶25

Crl.M.C.2700/18

¶26

¶27

words, if uttered, would, prima facie, attract Sec.294(b) of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act).

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to annexe-A3 which is an FIR. It was registered before the registration of the FIR in the case against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the registration of the case against the petitioners was a counterblast to annexe-A3 FIR. The learned public prosecutor submits that the offences were committed by the petitioners against the first informant in view of the lodging of the FI statement pertaining to annexe-A3. The said view is not one impossible.

¶29

The delay in filing the FIR is the third and final ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The delay in lodging the FI statement was 20 days. The learned public prosecutor submits that it was not an unexplained delay. The learned public prosecutor submits that immediately after the incident a complaint was given

¶30

Crl.M.C.2700/18

¶31

¶32

to the principal of the college who did not take any action. There is an explanation for the delay. Is the explanation correct or not is not a matter which can be considered while considering a proceedings under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

I do not see any merit in the Crl.M.C. The petitioners have a right to agitate the same grounds at the time of hearing under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. If they raise such grounds or any other ground at the time of hearing under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C, the learned sessions judge shall consider those grounds untrammelled and uninfluenced by anything stated in this order. The Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Dismissed.

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/4.10.

Crl.M.C.2700/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 1962/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶42

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 26.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶43

ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 1804/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

Shahina K.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahina K.K. 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

State Bank of Travancore, Vs T.K.Hamsa Haji

M.I.Abdul Basheer Vs Sasidharan

Vilasini Amma, Vs Nagaputhran

Bhavani Vs C.Santhamma

Bhavani Vs N. Stella Bai

Jayaraj Vs Sudheer