Quashed

Raghavan Nambiar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021Crl.MC/8238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. The court held that since the final police report found the case false and no protest complaint was filed by the complainant, the petitioner could not be treated as an accused, making his presence unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The non bailable warrant issued on 18.10.2019 against the petitioner in C.C. No.335 of 2016 was quashed.

Raghavan Nambiar, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 8238 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST CC 335/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
MANANTHAVADY

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR,
AGED 69 YEARS
RETD.AEO, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SOUPARNIKA,
ARATTUTHURA P.O., MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV K.K.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV.

¶13

PP-SRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 8238 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.335/2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Mananthavady which arises from Crime No.82/2016. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Vinod Kumar before the Mananthavady Police alleging offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(1) IPC.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner was that he wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and abused himwith filthy language and also attacked him with a piece of wood. Based on the aforesaid FIR Police had conducted an investigation and initially submitted Annexure A3 final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mananthavady. On the basis of the same cognizance was taken as C.C. No.335/2016. Subsequently, a further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and after completing further investigation a further report was submitted as evidenced by Annexure A7, wherein it was found that the case against the petitioner is false and accordingly it was referred as a false case. The same was submitted before the Magistrate on 12.09.2018. Thereupon notice was issued by the learned

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 8238 OF 2019

¶22

¶23

Magistrate to the de facto complainant for appearance. It is seen from

¶24

the proceedings as evidenced by Annexure A8 that the de facto complainant has not so far filed any protest complaint. However, on 18.10.2019 non bailable warrant is seen issued to accused. The petitioner is challenging the aforesaid proceedings in this Crl.M.C.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

It is evident from Annexure A7 final report that the allegations against the petitioner has been investigated and found the complaint was a false one. Since a report to that effect has been submitted before the Magistrate Court, the petitioner cannot be treated as an accused in connection with the aforesaid proceedings. The proceedings in respect of the same are related to the complainant alone as he can submit a protest complaint, if he wants, against the aforesaid final report, which exercise has not been done so far. In such circumstances, the presence of the accused before the court was not at all necessary and hence the issuance of warrant compelling his appearance was unwanted.

¶27

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the issuance of non

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 8238 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

bailable warrant against the accused is not necessary. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 18.10.2019 in C.C. No.335 of 2016 for issuing non bailable warrant against the petitioner herein is

¶31

hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶33

SCS

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 8238 OF 2019

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8238/2019

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.82/2016.
ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 41A
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.82/2016 DATED 09.02.2016.
ANNEXURE A4TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION REGARDING THE
RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.09.2016
BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, WAYANAD.
ANNEXURE A6TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.03.2017.
ANNEXURE A7TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT FILED BY
THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CC
NO.335/2016 DATED 11.05.2017.
ANNEXURE A8TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
335/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE JFMC-II,
MANANTHAVADI.

Raghavan Nambiar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavan Nambiar, 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

Maniboy Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Vinod Mathew Jacob Vs K.I.John

Yahiya a. K. Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shyamlal Vs State of Kerala

P. Anversadath Vs State of Kerala