Allowed

Jayachandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021Crl.MC/4507/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CriminalMisc. No.4507 OF 2018 challenged cognizance in a case under Sections 294(b) and 283 IPC. The court held that since the final report was filed over a year after the incident without condonation of delay, taking cognizance was barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC, making the prosecution unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. No. 4507 of 2018 allowed; All further proceedings in C.C. No. 607 of 2018 quashed.

Jayachandran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4507 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.607 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

1 JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O KOCHUKUNJU NAIR,AGED 67/18,98-B,PRAYAG,TC 14/985,PAROTTUKONAM,NALANCHIRA WARD,ULLOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 THUSHARA

¶10

D/O SARALA,AGE 38,98-B,PRAYAG,TC 14/985,PAROTTUKONAM,NALANCHIRA WARD,ULLOOR

¶11

VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION-REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2 SHANTHI,

¶17

D/O OF AGNUS,AGED 42 YEARS,SHANTHI BHAVAN,KAILAS GARDEN,PAROTTUKONAM,NALANCHIRA WARD,ULLOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.08.2018 IN CRL MA NO.8480/2018)

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R1 BY SRI.SANTOSH PETER, SR.PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.M.C.No.4507 of 2018 2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

¶24

Petitioners are accused in C.C.607 of 2018 on

¶25

the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvanathapuram.

¶26

The above case is charge sheeted against

¶27

the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 283 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶28

14-3-2016 at 8 a.m., the accused sprinkled water,

¶29

spoke abuse and opened the gate creating obstruction in front of the house of the accused

¶30

when the defacto complainant was passing through the way.

¶31

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶33

raised a single point in this case. According to

¶34

CRL.M.C.No.4507 of 2018 3

¶35

him, the alleged incident happened on 14-3-2016. The final report was filed on 13-3-2018 and the

¶36

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

¶37

offences on 16-3-2018. Therefore, the counsel submitted that, the learned Magistrate erred in

¶38

taking cognizance because it is barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, no petition is filed for condoning the delay in filing the final report. When this case

¶40

came up for consideration on 7-8-2018, this court passed the following:

¶41

“The allegation is that the incident happened on 14-3-2016 at 8 a.m. and cognizance was taken on 4-4-2018. Hence this is barred by limitation, it is

¶42

contended. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that after completion of investigation, final report was laid on 13-3-2018 for offences punishable under Section 294,283 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court accepted the final report and cognizance was taken. There was no application for extension of time also. This is recorded. In the above circumstance I feel that the contention set up by the petitioner herein that the cognizance was taken beyond the time

¶43

CRL.M.C.No.4507 of 2018 4

¶44

stipulated under Section 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C. appears to be sustainable. It seems that the defacto complainant is not made a party. I feel that she should also be heard in the Crl.M.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the defacto complainant.

¶45

Post on 17-8-2018.”

¶46

Accordingly, notice was issued to the 2^nd

¶47

respondent who is the defacto complainant in this

¶48

case. Though notice was served to the 2^nd

¶49

respondent, there was no appearance.

¶50

The offence alleged against the

¶51

petitioners are under Sections 294(b) and 283

¶52

IPC. As far as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three months or with fine or both. As per Section 283 IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment that

¶53

can be imposed is only a fine of Rs.200/-. As per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., one year is the period

¶54

of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the above offences which are punishable with

¶55

imprisonment for a term less than one year.

¶56

CRL.M.C.No.4507 of 2018 5

¶57

Admittedly, the final report in this case is filed beyond one year from the date of the alleged incident. There was absolutely no explanation for the same from the prosecution before the learned Magistrate. There was no petition filed by the prosecution for condoning the delay in filing the final report. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above offences is per se illegal. Therefore, I think, the prosecution against the petitioners are not sustainable.

¶58

Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.607 of 2018 on the file of

¶59

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

pkk

¶64

CRL.M.C.No.4507 of 2018 6

¶65

APPENDIX

¶66

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

ANNEXURE A:-

¶68

CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.213/17 U/S 426,294,283 & 34 I.P.C. OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

SD/-

¶71

P.S. TO JUDGE

Jayachandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayachandran v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Behera Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Ebrahim Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar.K Vs State of Kerala

Sajin Sha Vs State of Kerala