Dismissed

Shelcy v. Detective Inspector

Kerala HC12 Mar 2020Crl.MC/419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala appealed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Filed by a wife seeking further investigation, to set aside an accused discharge order, and to summon nodal officers. The court rejected all prayers. It held the PIO alone can seek further investigation, Section 482 cannot be used to dismiss a final discharge order, and no evidence would be improved by

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. The prayers for further investigation, setting aside the discharge order, and granting costs are rejected.

Shelcy Vs Detective Inspector — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B)

¶6

SC 983/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - II,

¶7

NORTH PARAVUR

¶8

CRIME NO.1397/2011 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SHELCY,

¶11

AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE THOMAS, PALATTI HOUSE, PARAMBAYAM KARA, MUKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ANGAMALI.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CBCID, HHW - II, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALI POLICE STATION.

¶16

3 SANTHOSH AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PALLI, THALIYAN HOUSE, JAYAKERALA NAGAR, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ACCUSED NO.8

¶17

4 BAIJU, AGED 35/11, S/O.AUGUSTY, NEDUMPURATH HOUSE, KARUKUTY VILLAGE, EZHATTUMUGHAM, ANGAMALY, ACCUSED NO.9

¶18

5 SURESH, AGED 37/11, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ARIYATH HOUSE, ERATUKULAM KARA, NALEPPALLY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, ACCUSED NO.12

¶19

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 2

¶20

6 BIJU T. MENON, AGED 32/11, S/O.SUNDARA MENON, PETTATU HOUSE, AVANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, ACCUSED NO.19

¶21

7 SUDEVAN AGED 44/11, S/O.BALAN, KOLUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI KARA, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR, ACCUSED NO.20

¶22

8 SUNIL KUMAR @ UNNIVARMA, AGED 38/12, S/O.VELAPANKUTTY, PALAKKAL HOUSE, WILVATAM VILLAGE, VIYYOOR, ACCUSED NO.21

¶23

9 SHIBU K. K. AGED 40/13, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KURULATH HOUSE, PATHUVAPURAM P. O., PALISSERY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, ACCUSED NO.23

¶24

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH BY SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITHKUMAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBCID

¶25

R2 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R3 TO R9 BY ADV.GEO PAUL

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 3

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2020

¶30

This is an application filed under Section

¶31

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

¶32

'Cr.P.C.'). The petitioner is the wife of the deceased in CBCID Crime No.1025/CR/2011 (originally numbered as Crime No.1397/2011 of Angamali Police Station). The 1^st respondent is the officer of the Crime Branch who had held investigation in the case. 2^nd respondent is the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and

¶33

respondents 3 to 9 are accused Nos. 8,9,15,19,20,21 and 23 who were already discharged from the case, by order passed by the trial court. S.C.No.983/2017 is the case

¶34

registered from the aforesaid crime after filing

¶35

of the final report. The Court of Sessions, North Paravur seized of the final report and it is pending consideration now as SC No.983/2017

¶36

before Additional Court of Sessions-II, North

¶37

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 4

¶38

Paravur. After ordering discharge of seven

¶39

accused, who are respondents 3 to 9 in the

¶40

petition on hand, charge was framed and trial held against the other accused. Trial was also concluded. At that juncture, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for the following

¶41

reliefs:

¶42

(a) to conduct a further investigation in the above CBCID Crime No.1025/CR/2011 (Earlier at Angamali Police Station in Crime No.1397/2011), and which case is numbered as SC 983/2017 before the Principal Sessions Court (no-2), North Paravur,

¶43

(b) to set aside Annexure A3 order in the Addl.Sessions court (no-2), Paravur in the interest of justice.

¶44

¶45

(d) To grant any other reliefs as prayed by the petitioner, during the course of arguments and which this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant.

¶46

Sri. Sajan Mannali, the learned counsel

¶47

advanced arguments for the petitioner. The 1^st

¶48

and 2^nd respondents are represented by the

¶49

learned Public Prosecutor and respondents 3 to

¶50

9 are represented by Advocate Sri.Geo Paul.

¶51

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 5

¶52

When the Criminal M.C. was taken up for

¶53

hearing, at the outset, Sri.Geo Paul, the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Public Prosecutor has raised an argument on non-maintainability of the petition on hand and urged that the question of maintainability must be heard first.

¶54

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first prayer in the petition is to conduct a further investigation in the above case numbered as S.C. 983/2017 and

¶55

pending consideration before Additional Court of Sessions, North Paravur. According to him a direction for further investigation is sought

¶56

in the case. Further investigation being a prerogative of the Investigating Officer, it is submitted by the learned counsel that a relief

¶57

in the matter cannot be granted on a prayer

¶58

being made by the defacto complainant. The

¶59

second argument was centered on the second prayer in the petition. Annexure-A3 order of

¶60

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 6

¶61

Additional Court of Sessions, North Paravur discharging accused No.23 is sought to be set aside. The argument of the learned counsel was that the order discharging an accused being a final order, revision is the appropriate remedy.

¶62

According to the learned counsel, when an alternative remedy is available to the

¶63

petitioner, she ought to have availed that remedy and invocation of jurisdiction under

¶64

Section 482 Cr.P.C is totally impermissible.

¶65

According to him,the prayer to pay costs is ancillary depends on the grant of the other reliefs.

¶66

Per contra, Sri. Sajan Mannali, the

¶67

learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

¶68

that for dispensation of justice, this Court is

¶69

empowered to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to him, he has approached

¶70

this Court immediately after examination of the

¶71

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is urged that in the case on hand proper investigation

¶72

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 7

¶73

was not conducted by the Investigating Officer and being highly prejudiced, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for entrustment of investigation to CBCID. Accordingly, this Court has directed the investigation to be held by CBCID. According to the learned counsel after entrustment of investigation with the CBCID, for about four years, the investigation was dragged and laying of final report was delayed. Therefore, this Court was approached seeking for a direction to lay final report at an earlier stage. This Court has intervened and in accordance with direction issued, a final report was laid before the Court of Sessions and the case was taken cognizance of. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that at the time when a preliminary hearing was held, several accused had applied before the trial court for getting discharged. The Trial Court granted order of discharge in favour of seven accused. According to him accused No.23, who has serious

¶74

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 8

¶75

involvement in the case has also been granted an order of discharge by the trial court. According to the learned counsel, call details collected by the Investigating Officer, though formed part of the Case Diary, were not produced before the court alongwith the documents proposed to be marked in evidence by the prosecution. During

¶76

the course of trial, the learned Public Prosecutor came across with the call details in the case diary and applied for getting those produced and marked in evidence. The matter was opposed by the learned defence counsel but, in view of the permission granted by the court in favour of the prosecution, those were produced. But, marking being vehemently opposed by the defence, those were marked subject to proof. The ground of opposition is not stated by the court specifically. Thereafter, the learned

¶77

public prosecutor applied for summoning and

¶78

examining nodal officers who had downloaded the call details. The prayer was allowed and

¶79

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 9

¶80

additional witnesses were permitted to be examined. During examination of those witnesses they have categorically stated that material particulars relating to the call details are not available in the system since those will be maintained only for one year and therefore, production is impossible.

¶81

It is submitted by Sri.Sajan Mannali,

¶82

the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the call details are marked subject to

¶83

proof, the failure to examine the nodal

¶84

officers, who are instrumental in downloading those, would be prejudicial to the defacto complainant. This Court is also in darkness about the nature of opposition raised against marking of the call details subject to proof. According to Sri.Sajan Mannali, the learned Sessions Judge during trial has stated that the call list is required to be marked through nodal officers responsible for downloading those.

¶85

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 10

¶86

With regard to accused No.23, this Court

¶87

has gone into the materials to see whether order discharging him passed by the Court suffer from illegality, impropriety or infirmity of any nature. A glance at the chargesheet would reveal that the accusations levelled against accused No.23 are liable only to attract his culpability in an offence under Section 212 IPC. Allegations in the final report are totally insufficient to attract an offence under Section 120 B IPC, for which he stood chargesheeted. The sole offence alleged against the petitioner being one punishable under Section 120 B IPC and for want of any materials to support the alleged complicity that the trial court has passed an order to discharge accused No.23. In the absence of any justifiable ground pointed out by the learned counsel to establish illegality, impropriety or infirmity which vitiates the order, this Court is declined to interfere with. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

¶88

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 11

¶89

for respondents, the petitioner ought to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

¶90

Further investigation can be sought by

¶91

the officer who had been entrusted with the Investigation alone and that too on collection of additional evidence. Authority is not conferred on the defacto complainant to seek for further investigation under Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The authority to order further investigation is the court where a report under Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 is filed. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents, the 1^st relief is not liable to be granted by invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Regarding the second prayer as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor the order discharging the accused being a final order, revision is the

¶92

appropriate remedy. As already stated the 3^rd relief being one incidental to the two reliefs

¶93

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 12

¶94

referred to above, is also not liable to be granted by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶95

It is apprised from either sides that the trial is concluded and the case now stands posted for pronouncing judgment. Now, the

¶96

question is whether direction needs to be issued to the trial court to re-open the evidence to permit the examination of nodal officers responsible for downloading the call details in dispensation of justice. The learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned public prosecutor submit in one voice that additional witnesses examined by the prosecution have already apprised the court that the call details and associated particulars would only be maintained for one year and those with reference to the case on hand are not available now for that reason. Therefore, valid purpose would not be served by issuing the direction as sought for. Therefore, this Court finds that summoning

¶97

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 13

¶98

and examining the nodal officers who have

¶99

downloaded the call details from the original system cannot improve the evidence available on record, in any manner.

¶100

In view of the above discussion, the

¶101

Criminal M.C. is only to be dismissed. In the result, Criminal M.C. stands dismissed.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶104

MJL

¶105

Crl.MC.No.419 OF 2020(B) 14

¶106

APPENDIX

¶107

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶108

ANNEXURE A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN OP(CRL) NO.578/2016, DATED 4.2.2019.
ANNEXURE A2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CBCID CRIME NO.1025/CR/2011 OF (ANGAMALI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.1397/2011), DATED 12.01.2017.
ANNEXURE A3	A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID DISCHARGE ORDER IN SC 983/2017 PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
ANNEXURE A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.237/2019 IN SC 983/2017 OF HON'BLE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
ANNEXURE A5	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CRL. MC.4958/2019, DATED 23.7.2019.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY R. RAJESHKUMAR, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH, ERNAKULAM AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 6.5.2019.
ANNEXURE A7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID 'CHART' PREPARED BY THE SAID POLICE OFFICER SRI. SUNDAR RAJ (PW 54) IS PRODUCED HEREWITH.

¶109

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Shelcy v. Detective Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shelcy v. Detective 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

Nassar Vs State of Kerala

Pushpalatha Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Aravindan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Eddy K.J. Vs State of Kerala

Mahija Rathnam Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishna Iyyer Vs State of Kerala