Quashed

Mujeeb Rahman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020Crl.MC/832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners. The court held these proceedings were an abuse of process, initiated solely as a retaliation against the petitioners filing a civil suit for debt recovery.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed and set aside.

Mujeeb Rahman, Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2153/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD

¶7

CRIME NO.499/2018 OF Vattiyoorkavu Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3:

¶9

1 MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, T.C.37/3005(3), MOONARATHALA LANE, KURUVIKKAD, KODUNDANOOR WARD, VATTIYOORKKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2 SHAMEEMA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O MUJEEB RAHMAN, T.C.37/3005(3), MOONARATHALA LANE, KURUVIKKAD, KODUNDANOOR WARD, VATTIYOORKKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3 DILSHAD, AGED 32 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, T.C.37/3005(3), MOONARATHALA LANE, KURUVIKKAD, KODUNDANOOR WARD, VATTIYOORKKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶16

¶17

2 UMMA HABEEBA BEEVI, D/O RAHMA BEEVI, 'KARTHIKA', HOUSE NO.12, KEERTHI GARDENS, VATTIYOORKKAVU VILLAGE, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SHARAF MANZIL, KOZHIVILA ROAD, PPM JUNCTION, PARASSALA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695005.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.VINODKUMAR (VANCHIYOOR) SR PP SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶21

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

Crl.M.C. No.832 of 2019

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2020

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The prayer in the afore-captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case

¶27

filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows:

¶28

“….to quash Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.2153/2018 on the file of The Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad.”

¶29

The petitioners seek quashment of the impugned

¶30

proceedings at Annexure-B final report/charge sheet filed in Annexure-A Crime No.499/2018 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, on the ground that it is an abuse of process of court, in view of the various aspects including the crucial aspects borne out from Annexure F report.

¶31

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the three accused in the instant impugned Annexure A FIR in Crime No.499 of 2018 of Thiruvananthapuram Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secti ons 323, 294(b), 452, 427, 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC, on the basis of the private criminal complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent-lady de facto complainant, in which the learned Magistrate had directed the Police

¶32

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶33

¶34

to register a crime and conduct investigation on the allegations thereon. The Police, after investigation, has filed the impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet in the said crime No.499 of 2018 of Vattiyoorkkavu Police Station for the abovesaid offences punishable under Sections 451, 294(b), 323, 427, 354, 506 (i) and Section 34 of the IPC as against all the three petitioners herein, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, CC No.2153 /2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶35

Brief of the prosecution case is that 2^nd and 3^rd accused are the children of the 2^nd respondent - de facto complainant’s sister and that A1 is the husband of A2. That, on two cases, accused persons had gone to the house of the 2^nd respondent complainant and demanded to return Rs.2 lakhs borrowed by her son-in-law. That, on 25.07.2017 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused persons have trespassed into the hall of the residence of the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant by breaking open the door of her house and again demanded money. That A1 had uttered abusive and foul words and has also criminally intimidated her. That when the neighbor of the 2^nd respondent tried to interfere, A1 had uttered foul and abusive words and pushed him. Further that

¶36

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶37

¶38

A2 had pushed the complainant and torn her pardha and A2 had damaged the door curtain and pushed down the chair. That when the 2^nd respondent had asked the accused persons to leave the house, A1 had shown her some sexual gestures and hence the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences.

¶39

The main case of the petitioners is that Annexure A FIR and Annexure B final report/charge sheet is only a counterblast made at the instance of the 2^nd respondent in response to the civil suit instituted by the 1^st petitioner against the 2^nd respondent. That the fact of the matter is that the 2^nd respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the 1^st petitioner on 24.09.2016 by executing a promissory note. That when the 2^nd respondent failed to return the money even after repeated demands, the 1^st petitioner was constrained to file Annexure C civil suit as O.S.No.1220 of 2017 on 10.08.2017 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of the said money. Along with Annexure C original suit the 1^st petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application as I.A. No.5003 of 2017 in the said O.S.No.1220 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for attaching the property having an extent of 1.666 cents belonging to the 2^nd respondent comprised in

¶40

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶41

¶42

Re.Sy.No.1/11 of Parassala Village. That the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram by Annexure B order dated 14.08.2017 on I.A.No.5003 of 2017 rendered in O.S.No.1220 of 2017 had allowed the said application and granted the said prayer. That, being extremely infuriated and enraged by the conduct of the 1^st petitioner in having filed Annexure C civil suit and in having successfully secured Annexure D interim order of attachment in the said civil suit, and to force the petitioners to compromise in the said civil proceedings, the 2^nd respondent has falsely placed allegations at Annexure A. That prior to the filing of the private criminal complaint referred to Annexure A, which led to the registration of Annexure A FIR, the 2^nd respondent had made the very same allegations before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission by filing Annexure E complaint/petition dated 11.10.2017, wherein the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission had directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Detachment, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct an enquiry on the allegations raised in Annexure A complaint. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram City has conducted an exhaustive enquiry and submitted Annexure F report dated 12.01.2018 stating that the said

¶43

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶44

¶45

exhaustive enquiry has disclosed that the abovesaid allegations made by the 2^nd respondent in Annexure E complaint are false. Thereafter, the matter pursuant to Annexure F report was examined by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the said Commission had closed Annexure E complaint dated 11.10.2017 as per order dated 07.04.2018 as the 2^nd respondent did not even care to prosecute the matter any further and she had not cared to appear before the said Human Rights Commission by then. The main case of the petitioners is that Annexure A private criminal complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom at Annexure B is only a counterblast made at the instance of the 2^nd respondent on account of the act of the 1^st petitioner in filing Annexure C civil suit and obtaining Annexure D interim order of attachment from the civil court, etc.

¶46

After consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that Annexure E complaint/petition has been filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission as early as on 11.10.2017. A compar ison of the allegations made by the 2^nd respondent Annexure F complaint filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission as well as that in Annexure A private criminal complaint (which led to the said FIR) dated 20.03.2018

¶47

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶48

¶49

would show that the allegations raised in both those proceedings are at the instance of the 2^nd respondent are more or less on the same set of facts and allegations in relation to the incident, which are said to have happe ned on 25.07.2017. The 2^nd respondent has clearly admitted both in Annexure E complaint filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission as well as Annexure A private criminal complaint about the monetary transactions between her son-in-law and the 1^st petitioner and that the 1^st petitioner used to frequently demand return of the money. It is also not in dispute that Annexure C plaint in the civil suit has been filed by the 1^st petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram as early as o n 10.08.2017 an d he has secured Annexure D interim order of attachment from the said civil court on 14.08.2017. I t is thereafter that the 2^nd respondent has raised the abovesaid allegations for the first time by filing Annexure E complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission on 11.10.2017. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram has conducted an exhaustive enquiry as directed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and has submitted Annexure F report dated 12.01.2018 stating that the allegations raised by the 2^nd respondent therein have been found to be false. Thereafter, the 2^nd

¶50

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶51

¶52

respondent has not even cared to approach the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, who was then constrained to close Annexure E complaint as per order dated 07.04.2018. It can be seen that Annexure E and Annexure A have been initiated by the 2^nd respondent only after the 1^st petitioner had filed Annexure C civil suit on 10.08.2017. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the 2^nd respondent has not even cared to appear before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and to prosecute the matter further, after the submission of the Annexure F order and Annexure E complaint was closed accordingly on 07.04.2018, on account of the nonappearance of the 2^nd respondent and the other related aspects. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a very strong case that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated only as a counterblast to the civil suit filed by the 1^st petit ioner as per Annexure C, in which he had even obtained interim order of att achment as per Annexure D. The self same allegations are made by the very same party (the 2^nd respondent) before another forum at Annexure E, which was exhaustively enquired into by the Police authorities, who found that the allegations are false as per Annexure F. The abovesaid totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, the civil

¶53

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶54

¶55

litigative proceedings between the parties and the subsequent aspects borne out from Annexures E and F, etc. would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexures A and B have been initiated at the instance of the 2^nd respondent, only for extraneous and ulterior considerations on account of the bad relationship between the parties.

¶56

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the initiation and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexures A and B is an abuse of process of court, which could be interfered with in exercise of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet filed in Annexure A Crime No.499 of 2018 of Thiruvananthapuram Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of the Calendar Case, CC No. 2153 of 2018 on the files of First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram, as against the petitioners/accused and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioners/accused will stand quashed and set aside.

¶57

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order

¶58

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶59

¶60

before the investigating officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad, who is dealing with CC

¶61

No.2153 of 2018 for necessary information.

¶62

With these observations and directions the abovesaid Criminal

¶63

Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of.

¶64

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶65

SCS

¶66

Crl.MC.No.832 OF 2019(D)

¶67

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

ANNEXURE A	PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.499/2018 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE B	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO/499/2018 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE C	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1220/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE D	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2017 IN I.A.5003/2017 IN O.S.1220/2017 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE E	PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
ANNEXURE F	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY

Mujeeb Rahman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman, 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

Leela Vs State of Kerala

Rajan P.B. Vs the State of Kerala

Simi Vs the Inspector of Police

Santhosh Kumar.R Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Jacob Vs G.Rajesh

Thomas Stephen Vs T.S.Sajeesh