Allowed

G.Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021Crl.MC/6809/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings against a Deputy Tahsildar accused of offences including assault while recovering taxes. The court held that acts allegedly committed during revenue recovery proceedings required prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Finding the magistrate erred in taking cognizance without sanction, the proceedings against the accused w

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6809 of 2017 is allowed; all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2013 against the petitioner are quashed.

G.Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 6809 OF 2017

¶6

[SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.1/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE

¶7

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR]

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

G.VINOD KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. GURUDASAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, CHIRAKKAVATHAZHAM P.O, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 RAMANAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, RAJINIVAS, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, KOTTAIKARAM, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM [DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT] 691 574.

¶14

R2 BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶15

R1 BY SRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW, PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Annexure-1

¶20

complaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 354, 323 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on Annexure-1 complaint, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same is now pending as C.C.No.1/2013. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner herein seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the calendar case.

¶21

The facts which are necessary for

¶22

considering this case are as follows:

¶23

The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Tahsildar/Junior Superintendent at Taluk office, Kollam. In the year, 2010, while he was working as Village Officer, Parippally Village, he happened to get involved in a revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Special Tahsildar to recover

¶24

motor vehicles tax arrears from the 2^nd respondent. As part of the said recovery proceedings, on

¶25

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 3

¶26

15.2.2010 the petitioner herein along with the members of the Special squad constituted by the Revenue Department consisting of Deputy Tahsildar, Kollam and Special Revenue Inspectors have reached the 2^nd respondent’s house at 12 p.m. When they reached there, the 2^nd respondent was not present and the matter was informed to the wife of the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent came to the Village office at about 3.30 p.m. and showered abusive words at the petitioner and also the other members of the special squad. In respect of the same, the Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery),Kollam submitted a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Paravur on 18.2.2010. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR and later submitted a final report. The aforesaid case is now pending as C.C.No.632/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur. Subsequently, on 6.3.2010, the 2^nd respondent submitted a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur alleging the

¶27

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 4

¶28

aforesaid offences against the petitioner and some other officers. Various allegations of physical and mental torture against the wife of the 2^nd respondent alleged to have been committed on 15.2.2010 are mentioned therein. On the basis of

¶29

the said complaint cognizance was taken by the

¶30

learned Magistrate as C.C.No.1/2013.

¶31

This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner

¶32

seeking to quash the aforesaid proceedings.

¶33

Heard Sri. V.M. Syam Kumar, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the Sri. Aravind P. Mathew, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

mainly raised two contentions. Firstly, it was contended that, the filing of Annexure-1 complaint was as a retaliation of the complaint which submitted against the 2^nd respondent herein based on the incident occurred in the Village office. The second contention is that, even according to

¶37

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 5

¶38

the averments contained in Annexure-1, all the said incidents were occurred while they were discharging their duties. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance for the aforesaid offences, unless sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) is obtained.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent seriously opposes the same. It

¶40

is pointed out that, Annexure-1 complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner herein which are sufficient to attract the offences alleged against him. The question whether the contents of Annexure-1 complaint are correct or not is a matter to be examined during the course of trial and the same cannot be a subject matter of a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. With respect to the second contention, regarding the sanction for prosecution, it was contended that, the acts committed by the petitioner cannot be treated as the acts forming part of their

¶41

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 6

¶42

official duties and hence no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.PC is required.

¶43

With regard to the first contention, I am of the view that, there is some force put forward by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. The veracity of the aforesaid allegations is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated in

¶44

a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. However, with regard to the second contention relating to the question of requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.PC, I find, there is some substance in the said argument. As per Section 197 of the

¶45

Cr.PC, a specific protection has been provided to the public servant from unnecessary and unwanted prosecution being launched against them in respect of the acts committed by them, while

¶46

they are discharging their duty. In this case, even going by the averments contained in Annexure-

¶47

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 7

¶48

2, it can be seen that the petitioner does not

¶49

have any previous acquaintance with the 2^nd respondent herein. The petitioner had visited the residence of the 2^nd respondent along with the other officers for the purpose of realization of the amount payable to the Government towards motor

¶50

vehicles tax arrears, as part of revenue proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority. The fact that, the amounts were due to the Government and the initiation of revenue

¶51

recovery are matters admitted by the 2^nd respondent as well in Annexure-1 complaint. All the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner which form the basis of Annexure-1 complaint, were occurred during the course of the proceedings of such revenue recovery process. Thus, it is evident that all such acts were allegedly committed by the petitioner while he was discharging his duties. In such circumstances, the prohibition as contained under Section 197(1) of the Cr.PC would come into play. The learned Magistrate could not

¶52

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 8

¶53

have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences,

¶54

without an order of sanction for prosecuting the petitioner obtained from the appropriate authority. It is a well settled position of law that, as Section 197 of the Cr.PC provides for a complete prohibition against taking cognizance of the offence without sanction, all further proceedings pursuant thereto are legally unsustainable. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Crl.MC. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur as against the petitioner herein, are hereby quashed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE

¶57

pkk

¶58

Crl.MC No.6809 of 2017 9

¶59

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6809/2017

¶60

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶61

ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 6.3.10 NUMBERED AS CC 1 OF 2013 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. ANNEXURE 2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.D93024/2009 DATED 18.2.10 SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR [R.R] KOLLAM TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR.

G.Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala

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

Suneer.P.K Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

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

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Jagal Vs State of Kerala

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