Remanded

Ajeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2022Crl.MC/9335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order sanctioning prosecution of an SHO for non-execution of process. It found procedural flaws in warrant transmission under CrPC but granted a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to explain lapses to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-IV order set aside; matter remanded to the Magistrate to reconsider after enabling the petitioner to submit an explanation.

Ajeeb Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶4

CRL.MC NO. 9335 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

AJEEB AGED 44 YEARS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S/O IBRAHIM, MARUTHAVANA, KOCHUMURI SOUTH, OCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH SARATH K.P. ANILKUMAR C.R.

¶7

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶9

ADV M P PRASHANTH -PP

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is the Station House Officer of Thrikodithanam Police Station, who is aggrieved by the Annexure-II order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottayam in M.C No.4/2022, has approached this Court by filing this Crl.M.C.

¶15

Annexur-II order was passed by the learned Magistrate, authorizing the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court to file a complaint against the petitioner for prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 174 and 187 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 114 of Kerala Police Act, 2011.

¶16

The facts which led to the issuance of the said order are as follows.

¶17

Earlier, in S.T No.103/2021, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottayam, a non-bailable warrant and the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C were issued against the accused therein. Since the accused was within the jurisdiction of the Thrikodithanam Police Station, the non-bailable warrant was directly forwarded to the Police Station from the Court. However, there was no response for the same from the

¶18

¶19

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶20

part of the petitioner. Later, a notice was issued on 31.10.2022 by the learned Magistrate asking the petitioner to show cause for the non-execution of process in the aforesaid case. However, for this also, there was no explanation from the part of the petitioner and the order impugned in this case was passed in such circumstances.

¶21

Heard Sri. S Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶22

The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even though the warrant was forwarded to the Police Station directly from the Court, the civil police officer who received the said warrant did not inform the petitioner and hence, he was not aware of the same. Later, when the show cause notice was issued, it also met with the same fate as the officer who received the same failed to report the matter to the petitioner. It is pointed out that there were no willful latches on the part of the petitioner, and since he was not aware of the aforesaid proceedings, he could not comply with the same.

¶23

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶24

¶25

Therefore, he seeks for an opportunity to execute the process issued.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that forwarding a warrant directly to the police station when it is outside the jurisdiction of the Court is not in tune with the statutory procedure contemplated under Section 78 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

After considering all the relevant aspects, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Section 78 of Cr.P.C, when a warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court has to forward it by post or otherwise, to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall endorse his name thereon, and take further steps to get it executed. Therefore, the forwarding of the warrant, directly to the police station concerned when such a police station is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned is not something contemplated under Section 78 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is not

¶28

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶29

¶30

proper. However, even if it is assumed that there were some technical flaws in forwarding the process directly to the police station, that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to avoid the responsibility of executing the warrant when it was served upon the office of the petitioner for execution. But it is discernible from the records that the petitioner has a plausible explanation that the same was not properly intimated to him by the officers subordinate to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to Annexures-III and IV memos issued to the officers concerned, who received the aforesaid process from the Court, requiring them to provide an explanation for their lapses.

¶31

Therefore, in view of the fact that there is a plausible explanation on the part of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to provide an explanation for the same before the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, Annexure-IV order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the same after enabling the petitioner to submit an explanation for the same. The learned Magistrate can reconsider the same after

¶32

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶33

¶34

affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit an explanation for not executing the warrant, and after considering the same, a decision shall be taken by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with the law.

¶35

Subject to the above, this Crl.M C is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶38

rpk

¶39

Crl.M.C No. 9335 of 2022

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9335/2022

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

Annex-I A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.11.2022 IN M.C NO.4/2022 (SUO-MOTO) INITIATED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTAYAM Annex-II A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 IN M.C NO.4/2022 (SUO-MOTO) PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTAYAM Annex-III A COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE CONSTABLE DATED 08-12-2022 Annex-IV A COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE WRITER ATTACHED TO THRIKODITHANAM POLICE STATION DATED 08-12-2022

Ajeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeeb 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

Vanaja A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba Salim Vs State of Kerala

Jojimon Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Ajeeb Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep S Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nidheesh P. Vs State of Kerala