Kerala High Court
Reji Jacob vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/7TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2012
----------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 187/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVALLA
CRIME NO. 518/2010 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA
---------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A2 & A4:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. REJI JACOB, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O JACOB, THANNIKKAL VEEDU,
AJILITHANAM MURI, KUNNATHANNAUM VILLAGE,
MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. MANEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O KUNJUMON,
KOLATHANADU KEEZATHIL VEEDU, AJILITHANAM MURI,
KUNNATHANNAUM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.
2. JIJU ABRAHAM, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O ABRAHAM, KUNNEL THAVARA KULAGARA VEEDU,
PADIJATTUSHERRY MURI,
KAVYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DSTRICT 689645.
3. VIPIN THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O P.C. THOMAS, PAYNUMUTTIL VEEDU, PULLITHANNAUM MURI,
MUNNATHANNAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645
4. VINOJ THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O P.C. THOMAS, PAYNUMUTTIL VEEDU, PULLITHANNAUM MURI
KUNNATHANNAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH
R2 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2012
----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES
------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A. APHOTO COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 518/2010 OF
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE
----------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1628 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2014
ORDER
This petition is filed U/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.187/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. The above case was registered by the Thiruvalla police as Crime No.518/2010 for the offences punishable u/ss.294(b), 324, 326, 452, 427 r/w 34 IPC. The allegation in the above case was that on 29.04.2010 at 9.00 p.m., the accused in the above case trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons like iron rode and assaulted him, which resulted grievous injury in the left hand of the defacto complainant. On the basis of the information, Thiruvalla Police registered the above crime and after investigation filed final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 2 Thiruvalla. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash Anneuxre-A.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant amicably. Moreover, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours. The injured is now working abroad and there is no chance for his presence in India for adducing evidence. Since the matter is settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, there is no necessity to conduct the trial further and it is an abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prays to quash Annexure-A final report. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied two decisions of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)] and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)] .
3. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the above argument and contended that since the injured is Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 3 now working abroad, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial court and seek for an early disposal of the case at the time of appearance of the injured. Hence he prays to dispose the petition.
4. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A final report. The petitioners contended that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence of the incident and they have no knowledge about the incident. They were falsely implicated in a criminal case and they have discussed the matter with the defacto complainant and he has no objection in quashing the final report.
5. From the records it is clear that serious offences were alleged against the petitioners. Even though the defacto complainant stated that he sustained serious injury, the respondents have not produced any wound Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 4 certificate for ascertaining the nature of injury. When final report is pending before the trial court, it is clear that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. When prima case is made out against the petitioners, it is a matter of evidence by the trial court. According to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the inherent powers can be invoked only for the three grounds mentioned therein, i.e, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal, [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] the Supreme Court pointed out that:
"where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed".
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that this is not a fit case to quash the final report by invoking the inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. Since Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 5 the petitioners and the injured are neighbours and intended to settle the matter, they can submit these facts before the trial Magistrate on appearance of the injured. Since the defacto complainant is working abroad, there is no possibility obtaining his presence, recently, for a trial. In such circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to highlight all these facts before the trial Magistrate. Since petitioners are working outside Kerala, if any application is filed by them with regard to the personal appearance, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of that application in accordance with law, on production of a copy of this order in the trial court.
The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 6 Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 7