Petitioners accused of assault and wrongful restraint sought quashing of the final report, citing five-month delay in FIR and a corrected date of occurrence. The court found witness statements supported the prosecution case and held delay and contradictions were matters for trial. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3544 OF 2023
CRIME NO.761/2020 OF Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode
TO QUASH FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1347 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA
PETITIONERs/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1SARANYA, AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. RIGIL, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE,
EDATHUL , UNNIKKULAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673574.
2RIGIL, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. BHARATHAN, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE,
EDATHUL , UNNIKKULAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673574.
BY ADVS.
M.B.SHYNI
RAMEES P.K.
RAJESH KUMAR R.
V.R.ANILKUMAR
ERFANA PARAMBADAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.2 NASEEJA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL RASHEED, CHALAPPADIKKAL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 672573.3 NAVAR AHAMMAD, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, CHALAPPADIKKAL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O, THAMARASSERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673573.SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.04.2024, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.3544/2023 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================ Crl.M.C No.3544 of 2023
================================ Dated this the 12 th day of April, 2024
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) to quash Annexure-I final report in Crime No.761/2020 of Balussery Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.1347/2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Perambra.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant materials including the final report and witness statements.
3 . As per the final report, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 r/w 34
Crl.M.C.No.3544/2023 3
of Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) on the premise that at about 13 hours on 14.03.2020, the 2 nd accused herein wrongfully restrained the second witness and beat him using his hands and the 1st accused kicked the first witness by the time. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. There was delay of 5 months in lodging the F.I.R since the occurrence was on 14.03.2020 and crime was registered on 01.08.2020. The second challenge was regarding the date of occurrence and according to the petitioners, even though as per the charge sheet the incident took place on 14.03.2020, the defacto complainants in their earlier statements stated that the incident occurred on 15.03.2020 and there was correction in the date of the incident at the instance of the police.
4 . Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit
that those are matters to be addressed during trial and for the said
Crl.M.C.No.3544/2023 4
reasons, quashment of the case as such is not permissible where witness Nos.1 and 2 categorically given statement supporting the occurrence. On perusal of the F.I.R and final report, there is a correction in the date of occurrence in the charge sheet, as pointed out. But CW1 and CW2, who are the victims of crime, given statement supporting the occurrence on 14.03.2020 and CW3 and CW4 supported the occurrence, being eye witnesses. Other witnesses also supported the prosecution case. CW8, Doctor Ashwin Ravindran, was cited by the prosecution to prove the wound certificate showing treatment of witnesses 1 and 2.
5 . Even though delay and contradiction, if any, in the statement of the informant are matters which could be pointed out during trial, on an overall evaluation of the materials available, the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie , warranting further proceedings by way of trial and in such a case quashment of the
Crl.M.C.No.3544/2023 5
complaint cannot be considered.
Hence this Crl.M.C fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
Crl.M.C.No.3544/2023 6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3544/2023
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure IA TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.761/2020 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE RURAL.
Annexure - IIA TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT
OF CRIME NO. 761/2020 OF BALUSSERY
POLICE STATION.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the final report in Crime No.761/2020 for offences under Sections 323, 341 r/w 34 IPC should be quashed citing delay in FIR and contradiction in date of occurrence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saranya
Rigil
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Naseeja
Navar Ahammad
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court