Dismissed

Anas .S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2023Crl.MC/647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under CrPC Section 482. The court held that dumping poultry waste causes public health hazards and is not a private dispute, thus quashing is not justified despite alleged settlement and fact disputes.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing of proceedings under CrPC Section 482 was dismissed.

Anas .S Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE11THDAYOFJULY2023/20THASHADHA,1945
CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶4

AGAINSTTHEORDERINCPNO.74/2019OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATE
OFFIRSTCLASS-II,KOTTARAKKARA

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-

¶6

ANAS.S,AGED25YEARS
S/O.SIRAJUDEEN,VAHIDAMANZIL,PALACKAL,
THEVALAKKARA.P.O,KOLLAMDISTRICT,PINCODE-690524.

¶7

BY ADV VISHAK.K.JOHNSON

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :-

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM ON BEHALF OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION-691507.

¶10

2PRAJEESH,AGED35YEARS
S/OLATEPRABHAKARAN,AMBHALATHINKAL
HOUSE,NJANKADAVU,IVARKALAEAST.P.O,
KUNNATHURVILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARATALUK,KOLLAM-691507.

¶11

BYADVS.NITHIN(ANCHAL)

¶12

SRI.MPPRASHANTH,PP

¶13

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON11.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner herein is the first accused in C.P.No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakara. In the aforesaid case, he is facing prosecution for committing offence punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

¶18

The law was set in motion based on the information provided by the party respondent. In his statement to the Station House Officer of Puthoor Police Station on 27.7.2019, he alleged that on an earlier day, at approximately 00:30 AM, he saw a group of people in a pickup truck with registration number KL 31 M 1194 dumping poultry waste into the Kallada River from the top of the Njankkadavu bridge. He approached the pickup truck to prevent the accused from dumping the waste into the river. It is alleged that the 1st accused drove the vehicle towards the de facto complainant and that if he had not escaped, it would have resulted in his death. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered and after the investigation was concluded, a final report was filed.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶20

CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶21

¶22

point out that the police have not been able to identify accused Nos.2 and 3, who had allegedly dumped the waste into the river. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had attempted to dash down the informant with his vehicle. It is submitted that the party respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he has stated that he has no grievance against the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be well justified in quashing the proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions. The investigation conducted by the police has disclosed that poultry waste was dumped into the river, causing health hazards to the entire community. It is submitted that the petitioner drove the vehicle, and the materials disclose this fact. He would further highlight that the petitioner has not produced the statement of witnesses before this Court. Finally, it is submitted that the facts leading to the registration of the crime cannot be regarded as a personal dispute between the informant and the accused, as it has a public element. Such matters cannot be justifiably quashed in the exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶25

CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶26

¶27

The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. While exercising powers under section 482 of the Code, this Court will have to refrain from analyzing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. Power is to be used sparingly only in rare cases and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

¶28

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offense is made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 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) and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293). I am also not inclined to quash the matter on the basis of the settlement arrived at with the informant, as the offense committed by the petitioner in

¶29

CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶30

¶31

dumping waste into the river cannot be regarded as a purely private dispute.

¶32

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that

¶33

the petitioner has not made out any case for interference.

¶34

This petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

SMA

¶39

CRL.MCNO.647OF2021

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 647/2021

¶42

PETITIONERANNEXURES:-

¶43

ANNEXUREMA1CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIME
NO.936/2019OFPUTHOORPOLICESTATION
ANNEXUREA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTWHICH
ISNUMBEREDASC.P.NO.74/2019ONTHEFILES
OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATECOURT,
KOTTARAKKARA-II
ANNEXUREA3ATRUECOPYOFTHEAFFIDAVITSWORNBYTHE
DE-FACTOCOMPLAINANTDATED05/12/2020.
ANNEXUREA4CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHESTATEMENTRENDERED
BYTHEDEFACTOCOMPLAINANTBEFORETHESUB
INSPECTOROFPOLICE,PUTHOORPOLICE
STATIONDATED27.07.2019.

Anas .S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas .S 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

Shaiju N Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sunny, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shameer Vs State of Kerala