Dismissed

Arun Mukundan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC21 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/394/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of a discharge application. The Court held that the trial Court correctly refused discharge as the facts required further examination of witnesses, but observed that the trial should be concluded expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; trial Court directed to dispose of the charge sheeted case expeditiously.

Arun Mukundan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 394 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.510 OF 2020 IN CC 667/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,

¶7

ETTUMANOOR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 ARUN MUKUNDAN AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MUKUNDAN, CHERUMUTTATHU HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 601.

¶10

2 ANOOP MUKUNDAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MUKUNDAN, CHERUMUTTATHU HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 601.

¶11

BY ADVS. C.N.SAMEER RASMI NAIR.T.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM 686 631.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.

¶15

BY ADV.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.394 of 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of September, 2023

¶21

The revision petitioners are accused in FIR No.1342 of 2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The revision petitioners submitted application under Section 239 seeking discharge in C.C.No.667 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ettumanoor. Their application stands rejected as per order dated 04.03.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ettumanoor. It is aggrieved by the said order that the revision petitioners are before this Court.

¶22

2 . According to the revision petitioners, the 1 st respondent registered FIR against the revision petitioners alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 294(b) and 341 read with Section 34 IPC as also under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The revision petitioners would urge that the

¶23

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.394 of 2020

¶25

basic ingredients to attract the offences alleged against them, are not satisfied. Impugned order pronounced by the Magistrate is not in tune with the pleadings in the petition filed by the revision petitioners. There are no independent witnesses in the case. The first witness is a police officer.

¶26

3 . The revision petitioners would further contend that they have been chargesheeted on the basis of a statement given by the police officer. The First Information Statement given by the

¶27

police officer would not divulge the ingredients of the offences alleged.

¶28

4 . There is no wrongful restraint made by the revision petitioners. The act of the revision petitioners in taking video using their mobile phone, has been described as committing obstruction which is not correct.

¶29

5 . As regards the offence under Section 294(b), it is submitted that the revision petitioners have not used such words

¶30

in public place so as to attract the offence. This crucial factor has

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.394 of 2020

¶32

¶33

also not been taken into consideration by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ettumanoor.

¶34

6 . Without considering the legal grounds advanced by the revision petitioners, the Judicial First Class Magistrate' Court rejected the application for discharge submitted by the revision petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶35

as per order dated 04.03.2019. The order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside, contended the counsel for the revision petitioners.

¶36

7 . I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.

¶37

8 . The ground urged by the revision petitioners is that there was no deliberate obstruction to the defacto complainant, made by the revision petitioners. It is the act of the revision petitioners in taking video using their mobile phone, which is said to be constituting the offence of wrongful restraint. Such

¶38

¶39

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.394 of 2020

¶40

allegation is unsustainable. The revision petitioners would further allege that such wrongful restraint is alleged against one of the revision petitioners, though the name of other revision petitioners have also been mentioned in the FIS by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the charge is vague and is not likely to result in conviction. In the facts of the case, the Magistrate's Court ought to have discharged the revision petitioners.

¶41

9 . Going through the materials available in the revision petition, in the FIR and other documents, I find that there is a specific allegation by the defacto complainant that the revision petitioners have obstructed the defacto complainant from discharging his duty. Whether it is the act of the revision petitioners in taking video using mobile phone is the act which is described as obstruction or whether the act actually constituted obstruction etc., are matters to be considered after examination of the witnesses during the trial. The statements made in FI Statement cannot be said to be not constituting offences alleged.

¶42

¶43

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.394 of 2020

¶44

10. In the matter of discharge, the Court has to look into whether the materials available before the Court are sufficient to constitute the offence alleged against the accused. Whether the accused have committed the offence or not, is a matter to be decided after trial.

¶45

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 04.03.2019 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ettumanoor. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. However, taking note of the statement made by the counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners are young persons aspiring to get employment abroad, it would be only proper that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ettumanoor, finally dispose of C.C.No.667 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

Arun Mukundan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Mukundan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Shibu Isaac Vs State of Kerala

Salahudeen Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Binu T S Vs State of Kerala

James Vs Vishnu Raj, IAS

K.P Sreekandan Vs Sri Vishnu Raj IAS

M/S Green Stone Rock Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhandari Swagat Raveerchand