Allowed

Vineetha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2024Crl.MC/81/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 188 and 283 IPC. It held that a violation of a civil court order requires a complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195 CrPC, which was missing here. The court also noted the obstruction was on a private pathway, not a public one. Proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C.No.1264/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.473/2017 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, sha

Vineetha 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 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 81 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.473/2017 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

 IN CC NO.1264 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶8

CLASS -I,ATTINGAL

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1VINEETHA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. SUSEELA,
SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ANACKODE,
MANJAMALA, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695317.

¶11

2SHIBU
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. SUDHAKARAN,
GOKULAM VEEDU, ANACKODE,
MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695317.

¶12

BY ADV M.ABDUL RASHEED

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POTHENCODE POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,HIGH COURT P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2SHIBU
AGED 43,
S/O. VISWAMBARAN,

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.81 of 2020

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

AMALALAYAM HOUSE,
MANGATTUKONAM, CHANTHAVILA DIVISION,
AYIROOPARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584.

¶19

BY ADV.
M.C .ASHI
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.81 of 2020

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.81 of 2020

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1264/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.473/2017 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in the above case through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶28

According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 22.03.2017, blocked a pathway leading to the house of the plaintiff in OS.No.128/2017, by dumping two loads of metal, causing obstruction and also acted in violation of the interim order in I.A.No.709/2019 in O.S.No.128/2017 and thereby committed the offences under Sections 188 and 283 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶29

I have heard Sri. M.Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ashi.M.C, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

Despite notice to the second respondent, there is no appearance.

¶31

As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless the complaint in writing is given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Petitioners are alleged to have violated an

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.81 of 2020

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

interim order of the Munsiff’s Court, Attingal, in O.S.No.128/2017 and the defacto complainant is the Sub Inspector of Police. There is no compliance with the mandate of Section 195 of Cr.P.C, as the Sub Inspector of Police cannot fall within the purview of the public servant concerned, when the order of court is allegedly violated. On the above basis, Section 188 of IPC cannot be attracted.

¶35

As far as Section 283 IPC is concerned, the offence is attracted only if the obstruction is caused on a public way or public line of navigation. Though the final report alleges that two loads of metal were unloaded on a pathway, there is no reference to a public pathway. In the absence of the said allegation, the offence under Section 283 of IPC also cannot be attracted.

¶36

In such a view of the matter, proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1264/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal is an abuse of the process of the court.

¶37

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1264/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.473/2017 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, shall stand quashed.

¶38

Criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

Jka/19.03.24.

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.81 of 2020

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 81/2020

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.
473/2017 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶47

ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED
20.03.2017 IN IA NO.709/2017 IN OS NO.
128/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 128/2017
DATED 20.03.2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS
COURT, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A4CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO.1264/2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL WITH
AROSE FROM CRIME NO.473/2017 OF POTHENCODE
POLICESTATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.

Vineetha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineetha 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

Fathima Vs the State of Kerala

A.M.Mubasheer Vs State of Kerala

Adwait S. Nair, Vs Shajeev Vijayan

Roy Joseph Vs State Police Chief

Kamala K. Vs State of Kerala

Muthu @ Subeesh Vs State of Kerala