Allowed

Vinod v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2024Crl.MC/2257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against two police petitioners. The Court held that since the petitioners were discharging their official duty, prosecution without sanction under Section 197 CrPC is unsustainable and ordered quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1097 of 2015 are quashed.

Vinod Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2257 OF 2016

¶6

CRIME NO.684/2014 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.1097 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

¶7

FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1VINOD
AGED 37 YEARS,
GRADE SCPO 5050,
ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680641.

¶10

2UMESH
AGED 32 YEARS,
GRADE CPO 6080,
ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680641.

¶11

BY ADVS.
 SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
 SMT.R.RAJITHA
 SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
 R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2SASI
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. KUMARAN,
KADAVIL HOUSE,ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 641.

¶15

BY ADV
 SRI T.R.RENJITH SR PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C No.2257 of 2016

¶18

¶19

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

================================

¶21

Crl.M.C No.2257 of 2016

¶22

=================================

¶23

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.1097/2015 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II Court, Thrissur, arising from Crime No.648/2014 of Anthikkad Police Station The above case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the 2^nd accused. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 333, 324 and 506 (i), r/w 34 Indian Penal Code .

¶26

Prosecution case is that, while the complainant was traveling

¶27

in a car, another car intercepted the same and the passengers in the car started a quarrel. During the said altercation, accused persons came in a police jeep and without any provocation assaulted the 2^nd respondent causing injury to him. Annexure A is the private complaint. Sworn Statement of two witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate as evident by Annexures-B and C. Based on the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered the above offences.

¶28

Crl.M.C No.2257 of 2016

¶29

¶30

According to the petitioners, the prosecution case against the petitioners are unsustainable because they were police officials and they were discharging their official duty and hence without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C, the prosecution is unsustainable. According to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent was carrying a chopper and was found violating public order at Anthikkad center and when the police party, including the petitioners reached the spot, they found the 2^nd respondent was carrying a chopper. While they attempted to arrest him, he assaulted the petitioners causing injury to them. An FIR is registered against the 2^nd respondent as evident by Annexure F and a final report is also filed as evident by Annexure G. Therefore, it is asserted that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners without a sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C is unsustainable.

¶31

Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent. I also heard the public prosecutor.

¶32

After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that, there is force in the argument of the petitioners that sanction under Section Cr.P.C is necessary to prosecute the petitioners, who are admittedly police personnel at the time of the alleged incident. A perusal of the facts in the complaint itself would show that the

¶33

Crl.M.C No.2257 of 2016

¶34

¶35

petitioners were discharging their duty and at that time the alleged incident happened, In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is unsustainable. Therefore the prosecution against the petitioners can be quashed. Moreover, this Court in Crl.M.C No. 2584/2021 quashed the proceedings against the 2^nd respondent also, so that there is a quietus to the entire issue.

¶36

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed with the following direction:

¶37

All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1097 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II Court, Thrissur, arising from Crime No. 648/2014 of Anthikkad Police Station are quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶40

HKH/15.07.2024

¶41

Crl.M.C No.2257 of 2016

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2257/2016

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶45

`ANNEXURE A`	`CERTIFIED COPY`	`OF`	`PRIVATE COMPLAINT MP`
	`2757/14 IN CC` `RESPONDENT BEF` `CLASS MAGISTRAT`	`1097` `ORE` `E CO`	`/15 FILED BY THE 2ND` `THE JUDICIAL FIRST` `URT-II, THRISSUR.`
`ANNEXURE B`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `IN MP 2757/14 I`	`OF` `N CC`	`SWORN STATEMENT OF CW1` `1097/15.`
`ANNEXURE C`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `IN MP 2757/14 I`	`OF` `N CC`	`SWORN STATEMENT OF CW2` `1097/15.`
`ANNEXURE D`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `1ST PETITIONER.`	`OF`	`WOUND CERTIFICATE OF`
`ANNEXURE E`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `2ND PETITIONER.`	`OF`	`WOUND CERTIFICATE OF`
`ANNEXURE F`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `OF ANTHIKKAD PO`	`OF` `LICE`	`FIR IN CRIME NO.648/14` `STATION.`
`ANNEXURE G`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `NO.648/14 OF AN`	`OF` `THIK`	`FINAL REPORT IN CRIME` `KAD POLICE STATION.`
`ANNEXURE H`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `THE 2ND RESPOND`	`OF` `ENT.`	`WOUND CERTIFICATE OF`
`ANNEXURE I`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `NO.648/14 OF AN`	`OF` `THIK`	`REMAND REPORT IN CRIME` `KAD POLICE STATION.`

Vinod v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Sahni Vs State of Kerala

Shino Eapen Vs State of Kerala

Sneha Vs State of Kerala

K. Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

George Samuel Vs Susan Beena Zacharia

Chinna S.Karippai Vs State of Kerala