Dismissed

Thyagarajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2024Crl.MC/3411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First accused sought quashing of trespass and property-damage prosecution citing absence from the country and lack of Section 34 IPC common intention ingredients. Holding alibi is triable only during the course of evidence and that uncontroverted final report allegations disclosed offences, the court dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3411 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.315/2018 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1546 OF 2018

¶7

OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶9

THYAGARAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, RAVANESHAWARAM,
PULLUR VILLAGE,
AMBALATHARAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
KODOTH SREEDHARAN
ARUN FRANCIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AMBALATHARA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

2A.X.SEBASTIAN
S/O.A.V.XAVIER, EDOT HOUSE,
PLANTHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
LALAM, PALA, PIN – 686 575.
BY ADVS.
DIVYA C BALAN
P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI(K/34/1996)
SREEJA V.(PP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 3411 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶17

......….............................................

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.3411 of 2021

¶19

…................................................

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.1546/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. Petitioner seeks to quash the said proceedings through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶23

According to the prosecution, on 06.10.2018 at 10 a.m., accused 3 to 6 had, on the instructions of the first and second accused, trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and demolished the compound wall, causing a damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

Sri.Kodoth Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that during the relevant time the petitioner was not in the country, as is evidenced by the endorsement in the passport, and further that Section 34 of IPC requires the active participation of the accused with a prior meeting of minds. According to the learned counsel, none of those

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 3411 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

ingredients were present in the instant case, and therefore, prosecution against the petitioner ought to be quashed.

¶28

Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is a matter which has to be considered during trial and even the question of active participation of the petitioner in the instant case and whether there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused are all factors which will have to be considered after evidence is adduced.

¶29

The nature of allegations as evident from the final report indicate that specific overt acts are alleged against accused 3 to 6 while the petitioner and the second accused are alleged to have instructed the said accused to indulge in the criminal activity. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, a plea of alibi, is a matter which will have to be established during trial as held in the decision in Khalid v. State of Kerala 2024 (2) KHC 441, and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings at this stage on the basis of the plea of alibi.

¶30

Even the question whether there was any active participation and meeting of minds between the accused to rope in the petitioner as an

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 3411 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

accused, is a matter which can be considered only after trial.

¶34

The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C being very limited and unless the uncontroverted allegations in the final report if taken on its face value does not make out any offence, can the remedy be invoked. Since the allegations in the final report, if uncontroverted make out the offences alleged, I find no merit in the Crl.M.C. and it is

¶35

dismissed.

¶36

sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/05/06/2024

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 3411 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3411/2021

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶41

ANNEXURE ITRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
30/10/2018INCRIMENO.315/2018OF
AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE IITRUE COPYOF THE FIR DATED 7/10/2018 IN CRIME
NO.315/18 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER

¶42

TRUE COPY

Thyagarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thyagarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amal Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Prem Navas @ Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Sreehari Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Geevarghese Alias Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha Vs State of Kerala

Dency Varghese Vs Lincy William