Remanded

P.B.Prasobh v. K.a.Muhammed Faisal

Kerala HC2 Dec 2021Crl.MC/2260/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the trial court to reconsider pending applications seeking discharge on grounds of lack of sanction under CrPC Section 197. The High Court held that quashing under Section 482 was premature, directing the Magistrate to dispose of the applications within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order remanded to the Trial Court for disposal of pending discharge applications within two months.

P.B.Prasobh Vs K.a.Muhammed Faisal — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

1943

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 2260 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRRP 175/2005 OF I ADDITIONAL

¶9

DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶10

TRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD

¶11

CC 207/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANNARKAD

¶12

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 4 & 5:

¶13

1 P.B.PRASOBH,

¶14

AGED 43 YEAS, S/O.BALAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

2 RAPAYI THOMAS,

¶17

AGED 63, HEAD CONSTABLE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD (RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION).

¶18

3 K.V.LAL, AGED 53 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE NO.3773,

¶19

MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, PALAKKAD.

¶20

4 SELVAKUMAR,

¶21

AGED 58 YERS, POLICE CONSTABLE NO.3057, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD (RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE

¶22

STATION).

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 2

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.P.M.MANOJ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶25

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶26

1 K.A.MUHAMMED FAISAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDUL SAMAD, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPPADY, ARAKKURUSSI DESOM, MANNARKKAD-678 582.

¶27

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶28

R1 BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶29

R2 BY SRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 3

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in C.C.No.207 of 2001 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. The petitioners are police officers. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 355, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶34

The allegation against the petitioners is that, the 1^st respondent who is the de facto complainant was taken into custody by the petitioners herein in connection with Crime Nos.116 of 2001 and 117 of 2001 of Mannarkkad police station. While in custody, the de facto complainant was subjected to torture and he sustained injuries. On the aforesaid allegation, a private complaint was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad, which is marked as Annexure-A. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same as C.C.No.207 of 2001. The petitioners have filed Crl.M.P.No.3342 of 2005, seeking discharge under Section 215 (2) of Cr.P.C on the ground that cognizance was taken without obtaining sanction

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 4

¶36

under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application as per Annexure-B order. The same was challenged by the petitioners before the Sessions Court, Palakkad in Criminal Revision Petition No.175 of 2005. As per Annexure-C order the said Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, by setting aside the order impugned therein and directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate to take the application back to file and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶37

It was pointed that, while the aforesaid application was pending, they submitted another application which is produced as Annexure-E and numbered as Crl.M.P.No.7713 of 2015 and the same is also pending. The prayer sought for by the petitioners is to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid Calendar Case on the ground that the cognizance was taken without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

¶38

Heard Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel for the 1^st

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 5

¶40

respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶41

The prayer sought for in the Crl.M.C. is to quash the entire proceedings in Annexure-A complaint. However, it is seen that the petitioners have already filed an application and sought for discharge before the trial court. Even though the same was disallowed by the trial court, the revisional court interfered with the order of dismissal with a direction to reconsider the aforesaid application in accordance with law. As the trial court has not considered the earlier application, the petitioners have filed subsequent application seeking discharge. Thus, it is evident that, the petitioners have already approached the Court for discharge and the same is now pending consideration. Unless the aforesaid petitions are considered on merits by the trial court, it is not proper to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is seen from the records that, Crl.M.P No.7713 of 2015 contains endorsement to the effect that the petition shall be considered after pre-charge evidence is taken. It is to be noted that in Annexure-C order there is already a

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 6

¶43

direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the application submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. In the light of the above, it is only proper that the learned Magistrate to comply with the aforesaid direction, taking up the petition and considering the contentions raised by the parties.

¶44

In such circumstances, I am of the view that, this Crl.M.C. can be disposed of by directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad to consider the CMP.No.3342 of 2005 in C.C.No.207 of 2001 as well as Annexure-E petition which is numbered as CMP.No.7713 of 2015 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since the CMP.No.3342/2005 was submitted in the year 2005, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,

¶45

at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶47

DG/02.12.21

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.2260/2016 7

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2260/2016

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.207/2001 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, MANNARKKAD.

¶52

ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/10/2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,MANNARKKAD IN CC NO.207/2001.

¶53

ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/2/2011 IN CRL RP NO.175/2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I, PALAKKAD.

¶54

ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING IN CC 207/2001 PENDING ON THE FILED OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,MANNARKKAD THUS FAR.

¶55

ANNEXURE-E TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING DISCHARGE U/S.245(2) CR.PC DATED 14/10/2015.

¶56

ANNEXURE-F TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OTTAPALAM BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALM IN SC 175/2005 SEEKING WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTON DATED 30/6/2006.

P.B.Prasobh v. K.a.Muhammed Faisal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.Prasobh v. K.a.Muhammed Faisal

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

A.U.Raghurama Panicker Vs Bijil

Muhammed Jafri @ Athil Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Suneer.P.K Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala