Dismissed

Ummer.K.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2023WP(Crl.)/16/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioners' challenge to an FIR alleging assault on a police officer. The Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised to quash proceedings where FIR allegations prima facie revealed commission of a serious offence.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition challenging the FIR; no direction for proceeding given.

Ummer.K.M. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.896/2022 OF Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 UMMER.K.M., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, KATTAKATTIL HOUSE, VARAVATTOOR, PALLUR.P.O., DESAMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 679 532

¶9

2 MUHAMMED ASLAM.E.P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER, ERUMBAKASSERY PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, EDUMBAKASSERY, ARANGOTTUKARA.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 533

¶10

BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN ABDUL RASHEED VYKHARI.K.U

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, STATUE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

2 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 010

¶14

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001

¶15

4 SANEESH,

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 303

¶17

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

5 HARSHAD P., CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 303

¶20

BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶25

-------------------------------W.P.(Crl.) No.16 of 2023

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioners challenges Ext.P1 FIR in Crime No.896/2022 of Pattambi Police Station. They also seek for a direction to complete the enquiry in Ext.P1 complaint, in a time bound manner and also seek for a declaration that respondents are liable to be prosecuted for having registered Ext.P1 FIR.

¶29

Petitioners alleged that they are the victims of a malicious implications in FIR No.896/2022 of Pattambi Police Station. Petitioners further alleged that the crime has been registered based on a false complaint at the instance of the 5^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police of Pattambi Police Station. According to the prosecution, on 24.12.2022, at 11.30 a.m., when the 5^th respondent was on traffic duty at PattambiGuruvayoor road junction, the driver of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 52 T 0001 repeatedly hit the 5^th respondent on his leg, fisted on his chest and shouted obscene words and even obstructed his duty and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶30

Sri.A.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident

¶31

¶32

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶33

alleged did not occur as stated by the 5^th respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the crime has been manipulated by the 5^th respondent for ulterior purposes as the 5^th respondent became revengeful since the 2^nd petitioner is a wealthy man having an NRI business.

¶34

I have heard Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the crime is under investigation and that petitioners are alleged to have assaulted a police man on duty and therefore no leniency ought to be shown.

¶35

According to the prosecution, on 24.12.2022, the accused had, on account of the enmity for having stopped the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 52 T 0001 took the vehicle forward and hit on the leg of the defacto complainant and thereafter abused him with obscene words and even assaulted the 5^th respondent and thereby prevented him from carrying on his official duties.

¶36

The allegations mentioned above prima facie reveals the commission of a serious offence. The scope of interference with an FIR as delineated by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions has been stated as very limited. If the allegations in the FIR constitute the offences alleged, this Court cannot, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. interfere since the inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to thwart proceedings at the initial stage where investigation is essential.

¶37

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

On a reading of the FIR, it is evident that the allegations if admitted do make out the offences specified. Therefore, this is not a fit

¶40

case to quash the proceedings.

¶41

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

RKM

¶44

WP(CRL.) NO. 16 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 16/2023

¶47

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶48

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF DATED 24-12-2 STATION	THE 022	FIR NO. 896 OF 2022 OF PATTAMBI POLICE
Exhibit P2	CCTV FOOTAGE 24.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P3	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P4	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P5	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P6	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P7	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P8	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P9	CCTV FOOTAGE 25.12.2022	OF	THE INCIDENT ON
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF HON'BLE CHIEF 26-12-2022	THE MI	COMPLAINT SENT TO THE NISTER OF KERALA ON
Exhibit 11	TRUE COPY OF RECEIVED FROM RESPONDENT	THE TH	REPLY DATED 29-12-2022 E OFFICE OF THE 2ND
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF 28-12-2022 IS BY THE 4TH RE	THE SUE SPO	ILLEGAL NOTICE DATED D TO THE 2ND PETITIONER NDENT

Ummer.K.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer.K.M. 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

Marakkar Vs Ummerkutty

Geethu Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Geethu Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Haroon Dilshad Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala