Partly allowed

Rajithkumar R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/6/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court held that offences under IPC Sections 143 and 147 were not attracted due to lack of intent to commit an offence or use of force. However, obstruction under Section 283 IPC was established. The order dismissing the stay application was set aside to the extent of barring prosecution for Sections 143 and 147, leaving Section 283.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.12.2020 was set aside to the extent it refused to stop prosecution for Sections 143 and 147 IPC. Prosecution to continue for Section 283 IPC.

Rajithkumar R. Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | 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 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶4

CRIME NO.247/2020 OF NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2020 IN C.M.P. NO.1428/2020 IN C.C. NO.837/2020 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY.

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

RAJITHKUMAR R.,

¶8

AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAJAMMA, CTRA-46, RAJITH BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, EDAKKODE, KIZHUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION, NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN-683 585.

¶14

R1&R2 SMT. C. SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. ---------------------------------------------------Crl.Rev. Pet. No.6 of 2021

¶19

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who is the 1^st accused in C.C. No.837/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, has filed this Crl. R.P. challenging the dismissal of the application submitted by him for stopping the prosecution under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283 and 188 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 283 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The petitioner is the 1^st accused and the prosecution case is that he along with other accused persons assembled unlawfully in the canopy area of Nedumbassery Airport and thus violated the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala not to conduct any possession and to cause obstruction to the passengers. It is alleged that the gathering above resulted in

¶23

-3-

¶24

CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶25

obstruction to the general public and thereby, the petitioner and the other accused had committed the aforesaid offences. C.M.P. No.1428/2020 was filed by the petitioner under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against the 1^st respondent. The same was dismissed as per the order dated 01.12.2020, and this Crl. R.P. is filed challenging the same.

¶26

Heard Smt. C.A. Charisma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. C. Seena, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶27

The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not attracted from the materials produced by the prosecution. According to the petitioner, he was a passenger, and on 15.03.2020, he reached Nedumbassery Airport in that capacity. When he arrived, as he was a person who participated in a popular reality show on a T.V. Channel, named 'Big Boss', several persons gathered there to greet him. The allegation is that the crowd so gathered had caused obstruction to the public and the prosecution case is that, on account of the same, the petitioner had committed the offences alleged.

¶28

-4-

¶29

CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶30

The cognizance the learned Magistrate has taken against the petitioner is for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 283 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The specific case of the petitioner is that, the fact that the people gathered there was not a planned one, and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner had not done to call for such a gathering. According to him, it was a natural reaction of his fans who wanted to greet him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application by relying on the statements of CW1, CW2 and CW4. I have carefully gone through the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. Even after careful scrutiny of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had made any positive attempt to create a gathering of the said persons. The consistent statement of all the aforesaid witnesses is that, when the petitioner came, many people gathered to greet him, and some raised slogans in his favour. In my view, the reason that when the petitioner reached there, a crowd gathered there, by itself would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Unless it is shown that the petitioner had deliberately convened such a gathering, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had committed the offences.

¶31

-5-

¶32

CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶33

As far as Section 143 is concerned, unless the formation of the assembly were with an intention to commit the offence, the same would not get attracted. From the statement of the witnesses, under no stretch of the imagination, it can be concluded that the gathering of the people by itself was with an intention to commit any offence. As mentioned above, there are no materials that a gathering of the people was convened by anyone. It is true that one of the allegations is that the accused had committed the offence under Section 147 of IPC. The aforesaid provision would get attracted only when force or violence is used by the unlawful assembly. However, the facts of this case do not reveal the exercise of such violence or force. Therefore, the offences under Sections 143 and 147 are not attracted in this case.

¶34

However, it is true that going by the allegations, it is discernible that the gathering of the people in the Airport to greet the petitioner has resulted in obstruction to the public. I do not find anything to the effect that the petitioner had done anything to prevent such obstruction; instead, he joined among them. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the offence

¶35

-6-

¶36

CRL.REV.PET NO. 6 OF 2021

¶37

under Section 283 would get attracted from the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶38

Thus, when all the aforesaid factual circumstances are taken into consideration, I am of the view that all the offences under Sections 143 and 147 would not get attracted, and the only offence that would get attracted is under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

In such circumstances, the order dated 01.12.2020 in C.M.P. No.1428/2020 in C.C. No.837/2020 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, is hereby set aside to the extent it refused to stop the prosecution for the offences under Sections 143 and 147 of the IPC. To be precise, the prosecution in C.C. No.837/2020 can be continued against the petitioner for the offence under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶40

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶41

bpr

Rajithkumar R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajithkumar R. 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

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Yunus Vs State of Kerala