The Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings for rash driving and driving while inebriated. It held the petition lacked merit as the evidence supported the prosecution version and quashing was not justified under N. Narayandas.
The Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed.
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 K.HARIPAL
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 29 OF 2020
ST 376/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SATHEESH AGED 51 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, ADHIYATT HOUSE, POLPPAKKARA P O, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (ON BEHALF OF THE SI OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM P.S)
OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SMT. C.SEENA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON 16.12.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.29/2020
2
O R D E R
The sole accused in S.T. 376 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure-I final report laid by the Additional Sub Inspector of police, Changaramkulam police station. Offences under Section 279 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act are alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that on 15.07.2017 at 21:00 hours he was found driving Maruti Alto car, KL-55-D-1651, in a rash and negligent manner, in an inebriated condition, at Kaladithara through Changaramkulam – Edappal State Highway towards Edappal. A truncated copy of Annexure-II FIR indicates that, that day while the Sub Inspector Manesh along with CPOs 4764 and 6029 of Changaramkulam police station were engaged in patrol duty, found a crowd on the road near Manaliyarkavu temple; when enquired, it came out that the petitioner, as the driver of Perumpadappu station, had driven the vehicle drunk and tried to knock down a bike rider. They approached the Alto car and the driver was found seated inside the car in an inebriated condition, unable to take care of himself; they found that it is Satheesh K., a police driver attached to Perumpadappu police
Crl.M.C.29/2020
3
station. In his talk and breath there was heavy smell of alcohol; from the version of the witnesses they realised that he was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, in a rash and negligent manner. Thus he was arrested from the spot at 21.00 hours; the vehicle was seized under a mahazar. He was taken to Changaramkulam Sunrise Hospital, subjected to medical examination and thus crime 168 of 2017 under Section 279 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered.
Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
Crl.M.C.29/2020
4
contentions.
drunk and there are material witnesses to say that he had been driving in a rash and negligent manner.
Motor Vehicles Act the accused must have in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser or in any other test including in a laboratory test. Even though a drunkenness certificate is produced along with the charge sheet, it does not seem that a breath analyser test was conducted under Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That
means, prima facie offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot lie against him.
rash and negligent manner, in an inebriated condition. Referring to the
Crl.M.C.29/2020
5
decision in Prem Chand , cited supra, the petitioner wanted to convince the court that the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was prepared in computer format, which is sufficient to create doubt on its veracity; but such statements are not forthcoming along with the charge sheet. In fact, basing on truncated documents the petitioner wanted to convince the court that he is entitled to be exonerated. That cannot be accepted.
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise made in the FIR.
Crl.M.C.29/2020
6
Here, after conducting investigation and examining independent witnesses, the police formed an opinion against the petitioner which can be analysed only after examining the witnesses. The court cannot embark upon a parallel trial and say that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, which, in all probability and having regard to the status of the petitioner, is unfounded. It is inevitable that he should face trial.
The Criminal M.C. is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL JUDGE
okb/13.12.21
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C.29/2020
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 29/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PENDING AS S.T. 376/2017 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT, PONNANI. ANNEXURE II A COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.07.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER/CW3.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quasi-criminal court can embark upon an enquiry into the reliability of the FIR to quash proceedings without a parallel trial.
Whether the absence of a breath analyser test exonerates the petitioner from the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act at the stage of quashing proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sagimon @ Prakash v. State of KeralaReferred¶2
Sagimon @ Prakash v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KHC 586]
Premchand v. State of KeralaReferred¶2
Premchand v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 32]
N. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka and othersFollowed¶39
N. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka and others [AIR 2004 SC 555] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satheesh
State of Kerala
K.Haripal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
