Allowed

K.B. Shahal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2023Crl.MC/1026/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC against a final report. The court held that the alleged facts do not constitute offences of house-trespass or criminal intimidation under the IPC, as the complaint described a dispute over money recovery without criminal elements.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016 is allowed and Annexure-A2 Final Report is quashed.

K.B. Shahal Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1026 OF 2016

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF FINAL REPORT FILED IN CRIME NO.114/2015 OF KOLLAM

¶7

EAST POLICE STATION WHICH IS PENDING IN C.C.NO.892/2015 ON THE FILES

¶8

OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶10

1 K.B. SHAHAL

¶11

S/O.BADARUDEEN, KODIYADU VEEDU, ESTATE ROAD, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KANNANELLOOR MURI.

¶12

2 MOHANAN S/O.SAHADEVAN, THIRUVONAM VEEDU, PALLIKONAM MURI, NAVAYIKULAM VILLAGE.

¶13

3 RAJESH KHANNA

¶14

KANAKAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MAMATHA NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶17

SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶18

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶19

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31

¶20

2 PERUMAL ALIAS BALU S/O.ANNA MALAI, DANIEL HOUSE,

¶21

NEAR THAMARAKULAM FIRE STATION, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, PIN- 691 001.

¶22

BY ADVS.

¶23

SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR -R2

¶24

PP - M P PRASANTH

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2023

¶30

This petition has been filed under Section 482

¶31

of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure.A2 Final Report in Crime No.114/2015 of Kollam East Police Station now pending as C.C. No.892/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 114, 451, 506(i) read with 34 of IPC.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant documents available in this matter.

¶33

The prosecution case is that, at about 14.30 hours on 13.01.2015, the 1^st accused criminally trespassed into “walk N style” a foot wear shop run by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and demanded the defacto complainant to give Rs.6,00,000/- due towards one Rajesh Khanna, who is the 3^rd petitioner/ 3^rd accused in this case and further stated that if the payment would not be made, the defacto complainant

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶36

should taken care of. The allegation as against the other accused is that they assisted the 1^st accused in committing the above overt acts.

¶37

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners none of the offences alleged by the prosecution would stand and the ingredients constitute the said offences could not be read out from the police charge as well as from the statements of the witnesses relied on by the Investigating Officer to form such an opinion. Therefore, Annexure.A2 Final Report deserves quashment is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

The learned Public Prosecutor read out the

¶39

161 statement as to that of CW4 to contend that the 3^rd accused also was present in the Police Station soon after the occurrence and therefore apart from accused Nos. 1 and 2, the 3^rd accused also has involvement in this crime.

¶40

In this matter, the prosecution alleges three

¶41

offences viz. 114, 451 and 506(i) of IPC. Section 451 of

¶42

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶43

¶44

IPC is as under:

¶45

“ 451. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment .Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.”

¶46

The definition of house trespass is defined under Section 442 of IPC and the same is as under:

¶47

“ 442. House-trespass .-Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".

¶48

Explanation.-The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.”

¶49

8. Going by the statement of the defacto

¶50

complainant as well as two occurrence witnesses, what

¶51

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶52

¶53

has been stated is accused Nos. 1 and 2 reached the shop to purchase foot wear and then asked to return the money due towards the 3^rd petitioner. In such circumstances, on no stretch of imagination it can be held that an offence of house trespass punishable under Section 451 of IPC as defined under Section 442 of IPC is made out from the available materials.

¶54

Coming to Section 506(i) of IPC, criminal intimidation defined under Section 503 is the offence. Section 503 of IPC is defined as under:

¶55

“ 503. Criminal intimidation .- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

¶56

On perusal of the available materials, it is discernible that the 1^st accused asked the defacto

¶57

¶58

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶59

complainant to give the money due towards the 3^rd petitioner otherwise the same was not correct and the defacto complainant would take care of. In fact, the said words by itself would not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC. Hence, offence under Section 451 and 506 of IPC will not attract to the facts of the case at hand. Similarly, offence punishable under section 114 of IPC also would not attract since the same deals with presence of abettor when the abetment is committed. Thus, it appears that Annexure.A2 Final Report sought to be quashed in this matter did not disclose the offences spelt out and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶60

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed and Annexure.A2 Final Report stands quashed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶63

¶64

Crl.M.C No. 1026 of 2016

¶65

¶66

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1026/2016

¶67

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.114/2015 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION.

¶68

ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.114/2015 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION.

¶69

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL

K.B. Shahal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.B. Shahal 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

Suresh P Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Jayan T S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Harris Vs State of Kerala

T. Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Muthunni Alias Sulaiman, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Safwan Vs State of Kerala