Dismissed

Robiin C.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023Crl.MC/5841/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a 5th accused, alleging abetment under Section 109 IPC. The court held that ascertaining the offense from uncontested allegations is insufficient evidence for quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking to quash all further proceedings in CC No. 144 of 2010 is dismissed.

Robiin C.George Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
THURSDAY,THE13THDAYOFJULY2023/22NDASHADHA,1945
CRL.MCNO.5841OF2014
AGAINSTTHEORDERINCCNO.144/2010OFJUDICIALFIRST
CLASSMAGISTRATE-I,ERNAKULAM

¶3

PETITIONER/5THACCUSED:-

¶4

ROBIINC.GEORGE,AGED32YEARS
S/OANTONY,MARAPARAMBANHOUSE,PUZHAKKARAPADAM,
VENNALAP.O.,KOCHI-682028.

¶5

BY ADV SRI.P.T.JOSE

¶6

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :-

¶7

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶8

2ANILKUMAR,AGED44YEARS
S/OAYYAPPAN,NJATTUMELHOUSE,PUZHAKKARAPADAMDESOM,
VENNALA,KOCHI-682028

¶9

BYADVS.
SRI.ASOKM.CHERIAN
SRI.ASOKM.CHERIAN
SRI.V.K.PRASAD
SRI.R.ROHITH
SRI.V.N.RAJAPPAN
SMT.NEEMAT.V,SR.PP

¶10

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

CRL.MCNO.5841OF2014

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ernakulam.

¶15

The petitioner is the 5th accused in the above Crime and he faces accusation for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 341, 323, 324, 325 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶16

The prosecution allegation is that owing to previous enmity, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the party respondent and attacked him on 17.5.2008 at about 10 pm and caused injuries.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

¶18

I find from the records that the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein had abetted the commission of offence and that it was at his instance that the rest of the accused attacked the informant. The contention of the petitioner is that the evidence collected by the prosecution does not support the alleged abetment by the petitioner.

¶19

CRL.MCNO.5841OF2014

¶20

¶21

Section 109 of the IPC contemplates active abetment by the accused at the time when the offence was committed. The personal presence of the abettor is not always necessary for invoking Section 109 of the IPC. The offence would be attracted if the act of the perpetrators was committed in consequence of the abetment. All that is required to show that the abettor has instigated the commission of the offence or has engaged the other accused in a conspiracy to commit the offence and in pursuance to the same, some act or illegal omission has taken place. It is clearly a matter of evidence.

¶22

It has been 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 the 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

¶23

CRL.MCNO.5841OF2014

¶24

¶25

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 Others [2021 SCC Online SC 315].

¶26

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 petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning the presence of the accused, and the plausibility of the version of the prosecution witnesses, are matters that 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

¶27