Allowed

Manjusha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2024Crl.MC/5366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition Crl.M.C.No.5366 of 2022, the High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the accused for allegedly obstructing a police officer. Finding the uncontroverted allegations insufficient to make out the offence, the Court exercised inherent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C.No.215/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana are quashed.

Manjusha Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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. 5366 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.29/2021 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
 IN CC NO.215 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

¶6

KATTAPPANA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MANJUSHA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O ANI, VETTUKATTIL H,
UPPUTHARA P O, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE,
PORIKANNI, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN – 685505

¶9

BY ADVS.
B.SURJITH
RAHANA JOSE
LIJO JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶12

2SELVAN THANGARAJ
S.C.P.O 3233,
UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION,
UPPUTHARA, P.O., IDUKKI,
KERALA, PIN – 685505

¶13

BY ADV.NOUSHAD K. A.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

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

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.5366 of 2022

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5366 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.215/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana. She is indicted for the offences under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short ‘the KP Act’). She seeks to challenge the proceedings against her through this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2021, at 6.25 p.m, the accused had with an intention to prevent the defacto complainant from discharging his official duty, behaved arrogantly and forcefully took the complaint filed by another person from the hands of the Police Officer and thereby committed the offence under Section 117(e) of the KP Act.

¶22

I have heard Sri. B.Surjith, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Section 117(e) of the KP Act requires threat, obstruction or assault to a police officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties. A reading of the final report reveals that the petitioner had grabbed the complaint from the hands of the Police Officer and behaved in an arrogant manner. The behaviour of

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.5366 of 2022

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

the petitioner does not fall within the category of threat or an assault, as an arrogant behaviour by itself cannot amount to a threat or an assault.

¶27

What remains is only the conduct of grabbing the complaint from the hands of the officer. A reading of the final report does not indicate that the complaint was grabbed from the hands of the police officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging the duties. Though it is stated that it resulted in obstruction of the discharge of the duties, it is not evident that the complaint was taken from the hands of the police officer with an intention to prevent him from discharging his duties. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 117 (e) of the KP Act is made out.

¶28

Since the uncontroverted allegations in the final report does not make out the offence alleged, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ought to be exercised.

¶29

Accordingly, all proceedings in C.C.No.215/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, hereby quashed.

¶30

Criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶33

Jka/4.06.24.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.5366 of 2022

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5366/2022

¶37

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.29/2021 OF UPPUTHARA
POLICE STATION DATED 01.02.2021

¶39

Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.
215/2021 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KATTAPPANA

¶40

Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
17.02.2021
Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO.208/2022 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE
STATION

¶41

Annexure A5TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.208/2022 OF
UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION

Manjusha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjusha 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

Amal Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Prem Navas @ Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Sreehari Vs the State of Kerala

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala

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

Dency Varghese Vs Lincy William