Dismissed

Madhusoodhanan Nair., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023Crl.MC/505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for alleged offenses of assault, mischief, and criminal intimidation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a prima facie case existed and the matter required trial court adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings dismissed; case remitted to trial court for disposal.

Madhusoodhanan Nair., Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE4THDAYOFJULY2023/13THASHADHA,1945

¶3

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶4

AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINST1540/2019OFJUDICIAL
MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS,PALA

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1MADHUSOODHANANNAIR.,
AGED61YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVKAIMAL,
RAGHAVAMANDIRAM,PERINTHANOORKARA,
OZHAVOORVILLAGE,UZHAVOORP.O.
KOTTAYAMDISTRICT686643.

¶7

2SREEJITH,
AGED39YEARS
S/O.SASIDHARANNAIR,
RAGHAVAMANDIRAM,PERINTHANOORKARA,
OZHAVOORVILLAGE,UZHAVOORP.O.
KOTTAYAMDISTRICT686643.

¶8

BYADVS.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.K.MOHAMEDRAVUF
SRI.D.SREEKANTH
SHRI.ANOOPKRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1THESTATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,682031.

¶11

2LUKOSE,
AGED71YEARS
S/O.KORA,
ENNAMPLASERRIYILHOUSE,NEARMANGANA

¶12

¶13

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶14

BRIDGE,PERUNTHANAM,UZHAVOOR,
KURUVILANGADI,KOTTAYAM686643.

¶15

BYADVS.
SRI.MATHEWSKARIA
SRI.K.J.JOSEMON
SRI.JOYJOSEPH(MUNDACKAL)

¶16

SRI.TRRENJITH,SR.PP

¶17

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON04.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.T. No. 1540/2019 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pala. In the aforesaid case, they are facing prosecution for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i), 447, 427 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶22

Short facts are as under:

¶23

The de facto complainant is the President of the Perunthanam Kuzhavayal Irrigation Committee. There is a dispute between the Committee and the accused with regard to the property wherein a pond is situated. The de facto complainant in his capacity as the President, submitted a request to the Taluk Surveyor to measure out the property. The complainant states that a report was submitted by the Surveyor reporting that the accused had no right over the pond. Owing to the enmity that the accused had towards the de facto complainant, it is alleged that on 8.2.2019 at about 11 am, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, is alleged to have trespassed into the property and assaulted the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that on 10.2.2019, the accused trespassed into the property again and committed

¶24

¶25

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶26

mischief by removing the pipes and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

¶27

Sri. P Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and the report of the Commissioner in the said suit would disclose that the disputed pond is actually in the ownership of the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that no independent witnesses have been cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence.

¶28

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent that specific overt acts have been alleged against the accused and that, being the case, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the criminal prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the records placed before this Court cannot be adverted to at this stage.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the submissions. Reliance is placed on the witness statement and other prosecution records, and it is argued that the materials collected clearly point to the involvement of the petitioners.

¶30

¶31

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶33

through the materials made available.

¶34

It is well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offense. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and

¶35

Others [2021 SCC Online SC 315].

¶36

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶37

¶38

Upon careful examination of the available materials and evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offense has been established against the petitioners at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners, invoking specific offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning purported contradictions in the witnesses' statements, absence of serious injuries, and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court will not be justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced before court. It would be prudent for this court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused.

¶39

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶40

¶41

In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere, this

¶42

petition will stand dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

avs

¶47

CRL.MCNO.505OF2020

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 505/2020

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

`ANNEXURE`	`A1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 0238 OF 2019` `OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BASED ON WHICH` `ANNEXURE A1 FIR WAS REGISTERED.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A3`	`SCENE MAHASSAR DATED 14.02.2019 IN CRIME NO.` `0238/2019 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH HAS BEEN` `NUMBERED AS ST NO. 3612 OF 2019 BEFORE THE` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CORUT-1, PALA`
`ANNEXURE`	`A5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH` `DATED 06.06.2019 IN OS 252 OF REPORT AND SKETCH` `DATED 06.06.2019 IN I 252 OF 2018 BEFORE THE` `MUNSIFF COURT, PALA.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 1ST` `PETITIONER.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GREEN CARD ISSUED BY UNITED` `STATES OF AMERICA IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST` `PETITIONER.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED GIFT DEED DATED` `10.05.2017.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A9`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED` `02.03.2019 IN CRIME NO. 238/2019 OF THE` `KURUVILANGAD POLICE STATION.`

Madhusoodhanan Nair., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusoodhanan Nair., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shine Vs State of Kerala

P K Kuryakose Vs State of Kerala

Roshan Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Varghese Mathai Vs the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Kerala

Varghese Mathai Vs the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Kerala

Abdul Samad Vs the State of Kerala