High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to quash a final report committal proceeding arising from an assault case involving family property disputes and alleged false implication.
The Criminal Misc. Case was dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of either party.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
AGAINST THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.1122/2015 ON THE FILES OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR PRESENTLY NUMBERED AS
C.P.NO.104/2015
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1&3:
1ROJESH JOHN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.JOHN CHACKO,
BATHEL MANDIRAM, AIKKADMURIYIL,
CHOORAKKUNNU, KODUMON.
2LATHA ROJESH
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.ROJESH JOHN,
BATHEL MANDIRAM, AIKKADMURIYIL,
CHOORAKKUNNU, KODUMON.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENT/STATE, DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED 2&4:
1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE,
KODUMON POLICE STATION.
2JOSHUA REJI
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN &
MOTHER SMT.DAISY REJI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.REJI,
BATHEL MANDIRAM, AIKKADMURIYIL,CHOORAKKUNNU, KODUMON.
3SHAJI JOHN
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JOHN CHACKO, BATHEL MANDIRAM,
AIKKADMURIYIL,CHOORAKKUNNU, KODUMON.
2
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
4 MAHILAMA SHAJI AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.JOHN CHACKO, BATHEL MANDIRAM, AIKKADMURIYIL,CHOORAKKUNNU, KODUMON.
BY ADV
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
PP-SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.P.No.104/2015 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. The aforesaid committal proceeding is arising from Crime No.1122/2015 of Koduman Police Station which was registered against the petitioners herein and the respondents 3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
4
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
the aforesaid proceedings.
the 1st respondent and Sri. Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
respondent seriously opposes the said prayer and prays for dismissal of the Crl.M.C. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, one of the offences charged against the petitioners are under the provisions of repealed Act, namely Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 whereas, the same stood repealed at the time of occurrence of the crime, by virtue of enactment of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. Of course, it is true that in the final report, the year of the enactment is mentioned as 1986. As per Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000, a person who assaults a child is said to have committed the offence under the said provision. In this case the allegation made in Annexure A6 final report is assault on a juvenile and therefore, the aforesaid offence is attracted. Merely because of the reason that, year of enactment of the Act erroneously mentioned, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
6
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
animosity between the parties. In this regard, I am of the view that the same cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding of this nature. It is a well settled position of law that powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. The scope of proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is confined to the question as to whether the allegations contained in the final report and other materials prima facie constitutes the offence, if the allegations therein are accepted in its entirety. In this case, I am of the view that this case does not fall under the said category.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which the powers of this Court can be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Crl.M.C. and accordingly it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of either parties.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
SCS
7
CRL.MC NO. 2905 OF 2017
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2905/2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 139/2015
ON 03.03.2015 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF
COURT, ADOOR
ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.
80/2015 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
ADOOR
ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
OS NO. 80/2015
ANNEXURE A4TRUE COY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.
544/2015 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
ADOOR
ANNEXURE A5TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS
LODGED IN CR. NO. 1122/2015 OF KODUMON
POLICE STATION UNDER SECTION 323, 324
R/W 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 23
OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
ANNEXURE A6TRUE COPY FO THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.
NO. 1122/2015 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION
NUMBER AS C.P. NO. 104/2015 ON THE
FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings for assault and false implication.
Whether an erroneous mention of the repealed Juvenile Justice Act 1986 instead of the 2000 Act vitilifies the criminal proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
ROJESH JOHN
LATHA ROJESH
STATE OF KERALA
JOSHUA REJI
SHAJI JOHN
MAHILAMA SHAJI
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court