Partly allowed

Abdul Rahman K.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023Crl.MC/5251/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the petition to quash criminal proceedings. While holding that criminal trespass and offences against modesty were not attracted, directions were issued to quash proceedings only for those specific charges.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were quashed only for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 IPC. Proceedings under Sections 323, 353 and 506(1) IPC shall continue.

Abdul Rahman K.A Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3 R D DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5251 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1288/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

¶7

FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CC 1288/2019:

¶9

ABDUL RAHMAN K.A AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ABUTTY, KUNNATHUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KUMARANELLUR, KATTUPRA, THRISSUR PIN 680 590 BY ADV C.D.DILEEP

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CC 1288/2019:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682 031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 582 3 SMT SOBHA, W/O. PRAKASAN, CHEMBATH HOUSE, ENGAKKAD, THRISSUR KERALA PIN 680 589 (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT) BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRUTHY N. BHAT SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SMT.KIRAN ANTONY

¶12

SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2023

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C No.1288/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry.

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 354 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The petitioner is the Director Board Member and the 3^rd respondent is the Secretary of the Wadakkancherry Block Multipurpose Co-operative Society. The meeting of Board of Directors of the Co-operative society was convened on 07.09.2019 at 11.A.M. Since there was no sufficient quorum, the meeting did not take place. The prosecution allegation is that, on that date, at 11 A.M, the petitioner trespassed into the chamber of the 3^rd respondent, wanted certain documents relating to his loan

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020

¶22

¶23

for his perusal and when she refused to furnish those documents, he pushed her, criminally intimidated her, took the files and photographed some of the documents using his mobile phone. It is alleged that the above acts were done by the petitioner with intent to deter the 3^rd respondent from discharging her duty as a public servant and also to outrage her modesty

¶24

Heard Sri. C.D Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.Ravikrishnan, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during the investigation are believed in its entirety, no offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 354 and 506(1) of the IPC are made out. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the FIS as well as the materials collected during the investigation disclose the

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020

¶27

¶28

ingredients of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 353, 354 and 506(1) IPC and when a prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot be invoked.

¶29

I went through the FIS and the entire final report. The petitioner is the member of the Director Board of the society namely Wadakkancherry Block Multipurpose Co-operative Society. The 3^rd respondent is its Secretary. Admittedly, the petitioner stood as a surety for a loan availed from the society. The alleged incident was taken place inside the chamber of the 3^rd respondent, who is the Secretary. According to the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner entered into the room and wanted to peruse documents relating to the above mentioned loan. However, the 3^rd respondent did not grant permission to peruse the documents and thereafter the alleged incident was taken place. As stated already, the petitioner is a Director Board member of the society. Being a board member of the society, he has every right to enter into the chamber of the

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020 5

¶31

3^rd respondent who is the Secretary. Hence, the petitioner's entry into the chamber of 3^rd respondent cannot be termed as a criminal trespass so as to attract the offence under Section 341 of IPC. However, the FIS given by the 3^rd respondent would clearly show that she was manhandled and assaulted by the petitioner at her chamber and he took the files related to his own accounts forcefully and photographed some of the documents using his mobile phone. The averments would show that the official duty of the 3^rd respondent was obstructed. Hence, there are ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. The 3^rd respondent has also stated that the petitioner has criminally intimidated her and Section 506(1) of IPC also is attracted. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that these acts were done by the petitioner with an intention to outrage the modesty of the 3^rd respondent, and hence Section 354 IPC is not attracted.

¶32

In the light of the above findings, the offence under Sections 341 and 354 of IPC are not attracted.

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020

¶34

¶35

Hence, further proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 354 of IPC are quashed.

¶36

The proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 323, 353 and 506(1) of IPC shall continue.

¶37

This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.5251 of 2020

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5251/2020

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A FIR WITH F1 STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 513/19 DATED 9/0/2019 OF THE WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE CRIME NO. 513/19 DATED 4/12/2019 ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 176/2019 ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN ARC 20/19 ANNEXURE E A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ANNEXURE F A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC 20/19 ANNEXURE G A TRUE COPY OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER ANNEXURE H A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 26582/19 DATED 4/10/2019 ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND DISQUALIFICATION ORDER

Abdul Rahman K.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman K.A 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

Isubu Ziyad Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Philograce Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Shyamalan Vs State of Kerala

Jacob @ Sabu Vs State of Kerala