Dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2021Crl.MC/1334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an accused seeking to quash criminal proceedings for arresting and assault charges. The court held that an inherent power petition is insufficient for examining the veracity of allegations. All party contentions remain open for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Motion to quash criminal proceedings under Section 341 and 323 IPC was dismissed; case remitted to trial court.

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶4

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME No.654 OF 2016 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN, SANTHABHAVANAM (H),
SOUTH KOCHUMARI, OCHIRA, KOLLAM,PIN-690 526

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

JUSTINE JACOB
SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT.BINDU MOHAN
SMT.AMRUTHA P S
SMT.AMRUTHA K P
SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

2DILEEP KUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.SADANADAN, CHITHIRA HOUSE, PARAKKODU,
CHEMPAZHANTY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587

¶13

BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED
PP SRI.SUDHEEER GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.654 of 2016 of Parassala Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegations against the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner is working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Karumkutty Check Post. On 06.04.2016 at 10.45 a.m. the de facto complainant captured certain acts of the petitioner in the mobile phone of the de facto complainant wherein the petitioner was demanding bribe from a van driver for carrying passengers in excess capacity. On account of the same, it is alleged that the petitioner restrained the de facto complainant and attempted to grab the mobile phone. During the course of the same, the de facto complainant was assaulted and he sustained simple hurt. Initially Annexure I FIR was registered for the offences under Section 341, 323 and 324 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(s) of Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act, 2016. After completing the investigation Annexure II final report was submitted for the offences under Section 341, 323 of IPC. This Crl.M.C. is filed by

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

the petitioner seeking to quash all further proceedings in pursuant to Annexure II crime.

¶23

Heard Smt.Raji P. Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public

¶24

Prosecutor.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that,

¶26

Annexure II final report is submitted on the basis of a false complaint filed by the de facto complainant who is in inimical terms with the petitioner herein. It is pointed out that, the de facto complainant was a temporary staff employed by the Department. It was also pointed out that, in connection with the aforesaid complaint a departmental Inquiry was also conducted and it culminated in Annexure III report. In Annexure III, a specific finding was entered into by the Inquiry officer to the effect that the complaint made by the 2^nd respondent was a false one and it was submitted due to the animosity existing between the parties. By placing reliance upon the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

counsel for the 2^nd respondent opposed the aforesaid prayer.

¶31

The finding in Annexure III report cannot be treated as a

¶32

material for the purpose of adjudicating the question of culpability of the petitioner herein as regard to the allegations contained in Annexure II. On going through the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there are certain allegations against the petitioner herein. The veracity of the aforesaid allegations is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be examined in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a well settled position that the power of this Court under Section 482 can be invoked sparingly under exceptional circumstances only if the allegations do not constitute the offence alleged. While examining the materials placed before me, I am of the view that this case does not come under the said category.

¶33

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Crl.M.C. and accordingly it is dismissed. Further it is made clear that all the findings and observations made in this order were only for the purpose examining whether a case is made out for invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. All the contentions of the parties are left

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

open and the trial court can consider those contentions untrammeled

¶37

by any of the observations made hereunder.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶40

SCS

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1334/2021

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE-ICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.654/2016 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE-IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.654/2016 OF PARASSALA POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE-IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT IS
DATED 23.05.2016

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rasheed P.S

Sunil James Vs State of Kerala

K R Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Maniboy Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Vinod Mathew Jacob Vs K.I.John

Yahiya a. K. Vs State of Kerala