The single bench quashed the charge and final report regarding the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, as the exact spoken words were absent from the complaint. Charges under Sections 448, 506, and 34 IPC remained unaffected.
The crime and the final report insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) was concerned stand quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4452 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1071/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THAMARASSERY
CRIME NO.306/2014 OF Koduvally Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 NOORUDHEEN KUTTY S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJI DARUNOOR, ALINGKADAVU PO., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690573
2 NIZAR NOORUDHEEN S/O.NOORUDHEEN KUTTY DARUNOOR, ALINGKADAVU PO., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690573`
BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM
2 FATHIMA .P.P W/O. LATE AHMED KUTTY 'TAJ MANZIL' PARAKKAPURAYIL, ELETTIL, VATTOLI AMSOM DESAM, THAMARASSERY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
R1 BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH CHAND,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.4452 OF 2016
2
ORDER
To quash the final report under Sections 448, 506 (i), 294 (b), r/w section 34 IPC the petitioners came up. Regarding the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, the legal positions is very much settled by a single bench of this Court in Preethimon v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 666], that the exact words spoken should find a place in the complaint or in the FIR, otherwise the offence under Section 294(b) will stand not attracted. Insofar as other crimes are concerned, Sections 448, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC, no valid
reason brought to the notice of this Court. Hence, the crime and the final report insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) is concerned will stand quashed without affecting the final report submitted with respect to the remaining offences.
Crl.MC.No.4452 OF 2016
3
Without prejudice to the right of the parties to exhaust their remedies at various stages, the Crl.M.C is allowed in part
accordingly
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
Crl.MC.No.4452 OF 2016
4
APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4452/2016
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION AND FIR NO.306/2014
ANNEXURE A2:`
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN C.C.NO.1071 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, THAMARASSERY
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is maintainable where the exact words spoken were not recorded in the complaint or FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Preethimon v. State of KeralaApplied¶20
Preethimon v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 666]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Noorudheen Kutty
Nizar Noorudheen
State of Kerala
Fathima .P.P
P.Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
