Disposed

A.P.Ibrahimkutty v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020Crl.MC/61/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR arising from a civil property dispute, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings. The Court directed the District City Police Chief to entrust the further investigation of the case to a Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher rank, completed within eight months.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the District City Police Chief to entrust further investigation to an officer not below the rank of D.S.P./A.C.P. to be completed within eight months.

A.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs the Station House Officer — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.61 OF 2019(G)

¶6

CRIME NO.1961/2018 OF MECICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

A.P.IBRAHIMKUTTY MALIYA HOUSE, KANIYAMPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695011, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2 SAVITHRI VIPIN NATH, D/O.JAYASHREE VISWAKUMAR, VAISAKHAM VEEDU, NORTH KUDANOOR MUDATHADAM PALLI, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682004.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL KASHA

¶15

SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

===========================

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶22

===========================

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2020

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The prayer in the above Crl.Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows :

¶26

“................to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings thereon”

¶27

Heard Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶28

the petitioner/accused, Sri.Ramesh Chand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri.T.B.Hood, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2 (lady de facto complainant). The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Annexure-A1 Crime No.1961/2018 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station, which has been registered on 24.12.2018 on the basis of the First Information Statement (FIS) given by the 2^nd respondent (lady de facto complainant), for offences punishable under Secs.465, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner would complained that the entire case has been falsely foisted at him at instance of the 2^nd respondent and

¶29

that the allegations will not seriously

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶31

¶32

disclose any ingredients to attract the offences under Secs.465 & 420 of the IPC and that the allegations in the impugned criminal proceedings has arisen out of a transaction, which is purely a civil dispute and that the said FIS has been given by the 2^nd respondent, which has resulted in Annexure-A1 FIR, is only as a counterblast to the civil case filed by the petitioner before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been numbered as original suit O.S.No.1951/2018, in which the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant has been arrayed as defendant No.3, as can be seen from Annexure-A2 plaint in the said suit. The petitioner would point out that Annexure-A2 civil suit has been filed on 10.12.2018, whereas the impugned FIS has been given by the 2^nd respondent in Annexure-A1 FIR only subsequently on 24.12.2018 and the petitioner would point out that this crucial factual aspect would also pinpoint to the fact that the same is only a counterblast.

¶33

Per contra , Sri.T.B.Hood, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the subject property belong to the 2^nd respondent’s mother, who subsequently died on 02.11.2018 and that the petitioner has filed Annexure-A2 suit by relying forged documents to show as if, the possession of the said property has been granted by the 2^nd respondent’s mother in favour of the petitioner, etc. and that the

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶35

¶36

findings of the Advocate Commissioner in the last paragraph of internal page No.4 of Annexure-A4 Commission Report would show that the security officer appointed by the 2^nd respondent in respect of the subject property was forcibly sent out by the petitioner and that he had thus forcibly locked the gate of the property and that he had thus secured illegal possession of the property.

¶37

The abovesaid submissions made by the 2^nd respondent are hotly denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court need not get into the task of resolving any such disputed questions of fact. On being queried, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent would point out that the original documents concerned are now with the civil court, as the same has been produced by the petitioner in Annexure-A2 suit and that the investigation has not been progressed, as the original document could not be obtained from the civil court for the purpose of subjecting them for expert opinion to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allegation of forgery of such documents and that though request has been made by the Investigating Officer to the civil court concerned, the documents have not so far been obtained and that is the main reason for the delay in the finalization of the investigation.

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶39

¶40

This Court suggested to both the parties that there is no necessity to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, as now it is only at the stage of FIR and the investigation is pending and that the ends of justice could be advanced by directing that the superior Police Officer be entrusted with the further investigation of the case, etc. Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.B.Hood, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent have welcomed the said suggestion of the Court for entrustment of the investigation to an officer, who is superior in rank to the present Investigating Officer. From the submissions of the parties, it is seen that the crime has been registered in the police station, which is within the territorial limits of Thiruvananthapuram City District Police.

¶41

Accordingly, it is ordered that the District City Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram will ensure that the further investigation of Annexure-A1 crime No.196/2018 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station shall be entrusted to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commission of Police, preferably to be conducted under the monitoring and supervision of an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. Orders in this regard shall be duly rendered by the District City Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, so as to ensure that the entrustment of the further investigation in this case is made over to such

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶43

¶44

officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The new Investigating Officer will ensure that the further investigation is duly conducted and completed without much delay, preferably within a period of six months, at any rate, within an outer time limit of eight months from the date of entrustment of the further investigation. Orders regarding entrustment of the investigation shall be rendered by the District City Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned Public Prosecutor will ensure that a certified copy of this order is forwarded to the District City Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, for necessary information and further action.

¶45

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶47

vgd

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2019

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A1	PHOTO 2018 TRIVA	COPY OF M NDRUM	OF THE EDICAL .	FIR IN CRIME NO.1961 OF COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE BEFOR	COPY E THE	OF THE MUNSIF	PLAINT IN OS NO.1951/2018 F'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE INJUN	COPY CTION	OF IN OS	THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY NO.1951/2018.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE REPOR	COPY T.	OF TH	E ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S

A.P.Ibrahimkutty v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Ibrahimkutty v. the Station House Officer

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

Muhammed Thajudheen @ Thaju Vs State of Kerala

Wilfred Jose @ Williams Vs State of Kerala

Unnikuttan Vs Mini a O

Don Biju Mathew Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Indira, Vs State of Kerala

Rohan Vs Arathy Krishnan