Ismail Beigue Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ismail Beigue Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the complaint averments and the pre-trial materials, there are sufficient grounds / a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, or whether they ought to be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

Ratio / Principle

At the discharge stage the court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecution/complainant.

Key takeaways

At the discharge stage the court is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or not.ratio¶8
On the complaint averments and the statements of CW1 (complainant), CW2 (complainant's son), CW3 (resident of the area) and CW4 (President of Vazhayoor Panchayat, who inspected the septic tank), the materials were sufficient to attract the offences against the petitioners.ratio¶7
The materials on record show prima facie materials attracting the offences alleged against the petitioners; accordingly there was no basis for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision — discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. — Revision by accused 1 to 3 against the order dated 17.02.2025 of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, dismissing their discharge application in S.C.No.1157 of 2023, a private-complaint case instituted by respondents 2 and 3 (members of SC/ST) alleging that accused No.1's septic tank contaminated the water in the de facto complainant's well and that accused 1 to 3 abused him by calling his caste name (Sections 3(1)(s) and (x) SC/ST (POA) Act; Sections 425 r/w 34 IPC). Held: at the stage of considering a discharge application the court is required only to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed; it is not to examine and assess the materials in detail, nor consider their sufficiency to establish the offence, nor see whether the trial will end in conviction. The complaint averments and the statements of CW1 to CW4 — including the Panchayat President who inspected the septic tank and found water seeping into the well — furnished prima facie materials attracting the offences. No reason to interfere; revision petition dismissed (Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, 20.03.2025).

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

1

2025:KER:24235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 IN SC NO.1157 OF 2023

SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT AND NDPS ACT CASES,

MANJERI

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS & ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 ISMAIL BEIGUE AGED 68 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, KALLUVETTIKKUZHI, AZHINJILAM P.O., VAZHAYUR AMSOM, PARAMMAL DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673632

2 SHAFEEQUE

AGED 38 YEARS

S/O. ISMAIL BEIGUE, KALLUVETTIKKUZHI, AZHINJILAM P.O., VAZHAYUR AMSOM, PARAMMAL DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673632

3 SHABANA AGED 29 YEARS W/O. SHAFEEQUE KALLUVETTIKKUZHI, AZHINJILAM P.O., VAZHAYUR AMSOM, PARAMMAL DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 673632

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

2

2025:KER:24235

BY ADVS. K.P.SUDHEER SHERRY M.V.

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

2 AYYAPPAN M.P S/O. KUNHULAN, CHINNU NIVAS, HOUSE NO. 16/221A, KALLUVEETTILKUZHI VEEDU, AZHINJILAM P.O., VAZHAYUR AMSOM, PARAMMAL DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673632

3 NITHIN M.P S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHINNU NIVAS, HOUSE NO. 16/221A, KALLUVEETTILKUZHI VEEDU, AZHINJILAM P.O., VAZHAYUR AMSOM, PARAMMAL DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673632

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.C. SEENA, SR. PP

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

3

2025:KER:24235

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, dismissing an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

2 . The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.1157 of 2023. The case was taken on file pursuant to a private complaint filed by the respondents 2 and 3. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 3(1)(s) and (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 425 r/w 34 of IPC.

3 . The petitioners are not the members of SC/ST whereas respondents 2 and 3 are the members of SC/ST. The petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused No.1 constructed a septic tank in his house compound, which is contaminating the water in the well in the house compound of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

4

2025:KER:24235

questioned the same, the accused 1 to 3 abused by calling his caste name.

4 . The petitioners preferred Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2024 under section 227 of Cr.P.C for discharge. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, this revision petition has been preferred.

5 . I have heard Sri.K.P.Sudheer, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Smt.C.Seena, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6 . The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the averments in the complaint, the statements of the witnesses and the materials on records would reveal that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that trial court ought to have discharged the revision petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there are materials on record to prima facie show the involvement of the

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

5

2025:KER:24235

petitioners in the crime and when prima facie case is established, the jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C to discharge the accused cannot be invoked.

7 . I went through the copy of the private complaint which has been provided to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the private complaint, there are clear pleading to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 425 r/w 34 of IPC. That apart, CW1 is the complainant. CW2 is the complainant's son and CW3 is the resident of the area. CW1 gave the statement in accordance with the averments in the complaint. CW2 gave the statement corroborating the statement of CW1. CW3 is the resident of the area. He stated that he saw the petitioner abusing the complainant by calling his caste name. CW4 is the President of Vazhayoor Panchayat. He stated that there was a meeting convened by the Grama Panchayat pertaining to the complaint and he inspected the septic tank pursuant to the resolution passed by the Panchayat and he was convinced that water was

CRL.REV.PET NO. 331 OF 2025

6

2025:KER:24235

seeping into the well from the septic tank. These materials are sufficient to attract the offences against the petitioners.

8 . It is settled that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecution/complainant nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused person. At this stage, the court is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. As stated already, the materials on record would show that there are prima faice materials to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.

Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH , JUDGE

AS