Kerala High Court
Limna Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 2 January, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4504 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 886/2016 of J.M.F.C.,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
LIMNA SUNIL
W/O.T.R.SUNIL,
THOTTUNKAL HOUSE,
CHAMAMPATHAL P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM 686 517.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 018,
THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CBCID, HHW-II, ERNAKULAM.
R. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-11-2016 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.5326/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4504 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/1/2016 IN WPC
NO.1263/2016
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P NO.886/2016 DATED 23/3/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
KOTTAYAM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy /
P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.Nos.4504 and 5326 of 2016
=================
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2016
COMMON ORDER
Crl.M.C.No.4504 of 2016 is filed by the de facto
complainant in Crime No.1647 of 2015 of Kottayam East Police
Station for offences punishable under sections 366, 506(i), 376(2)
(a) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It was alleged by the petitioner that the accused who is
a senior police officer had committed rape of her on a specified
day. The apprehension of the petitioner herein was that
investigation was not properly conducted and essential material
objects, which would prove the complicity of the accused, were not
seized by the police. It was alleged that her section 164 Cr.P.C
statement was not recorded and that the dress worn by the
accused at the relevant time was seized, but not produced in court.
Learned Senior Government Prosecutor submitted that, in fact,
section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim was recorded and that,
the materials objects, which were initially handed over by her,
were submitted in Court in proper time and that, it were
forwarded for chemical examination. It appears that she had
withheld two other material objects, which she did not produce
Crl.M.C.Nos.4504/16 & 5326/16
2
before the court below, for reasons best known to her. These facts
are totally contrary to the case set up by the victim in her Crl.M.C.
3. Crl.M.C.5236 of 2016 is filed by the accused, who is a
senior police officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, alleging that he has been falsely implicated in the case and
seeking for a direction for proper investigation in Crime No. 1647
of 2015 of Kottayam Police Station. Pending the proceedings,
learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the
investigation has substantially progressed.
4. In the light of the nature of allegations raised by the
petitioner and the facts disclosed from the CD, it appears that
serious allegations and counter allegations were raised by the
accused as well as the victim. An interim direction was given not
to arrest the petitioner pending the instructions. Thereafter, it
was submitted that in the light of the order passed by this Court,
accused was not co-operating with the investigation and was not
undergoing potency test. The learned senior counsel for accused
undertook that the accused will submit himself for potency test as
well as co-operate with the investigation.
5. When the matter was later taken up, learned senior
counsel submitted that pursuant to that, accused had undertaken
potency test and was subjected to interrogation. Investigation was
Crl.M.C.Nos.4504/16 & 5326/16
3
almost reaching its final stage. The statement filed by the
investigation officer shows that on the relevant day, victim had
sent two SMS messages and made 9 calls to the accused. It is also
revealed that victim and petitioner were in regular contact since
2011. This is also contradictory to her case.
6. In the light of the above submission, I find that no
purpose will be served by granting any relief in Crl.M.C.No.5326
of 2016. It appears that investigation is progressing well, taking
into consideration all above facts. Hence, it is closed reserving the
right of the petitioner herein to move at the appropriate stage.
Having regard to the fact that section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of the victim has been recorded and that, material
objects which were originally submitted by her were sent for
forensic opinion and that, victim had initially submitted that
remaining material objects, which were withheld by her had been
handed over, I feel that no further grievance of the victim can
survive in Crl.M.C.No.4504 of 2016. In the light of the above,
Crl.M.C is liable to be closed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
Sbna/3/11/16
True Copy / P A to Judge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4504 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 886/2016 of J.M.F.C.,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
LIMNA SUNIL
W/O.T.R.SUNIL,
THOTTUNKAL HOUSE,
CHAMAMPATHAL P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM 686 517.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 018,
THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CBCID, HHW-II, ERNAKULAM.
R. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-11-2016 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.5326/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4504 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/1/2016 IN WPC
NO.1263/2016
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P NO.886/2016 DATED 23/3/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
KOTTAYAM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy /
P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.Nos.4504 and 5326 of 2016
=================
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2016
COMMON ORDER
Crl.M.C.No.4504 of 2016 is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.1647 of 2015 of Kottayam East Police Station for offences punishable under sections 366, 506(i), 376(2)
(a) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It was alleged by the petitioner that the accused who is a senior police officer had committed rape of her on a specified day. The apprehension of the petitioner herein was that investigation was not properly conducted and essential material objects, which would prove the complicity of the accused, were not seized by the police. It was alleged that her section 164 Cr.P.C statement was not recorded and that the dress worn by the accused at the relevant time was seized, but not produced in court. Learned Senior Government Prosecutor submitted that, in fact, section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim was recorded and that, the materials objects, which were initially handed over by her, were submitted in Court in proper time and that, it were forwarded for chemical examination. It appears that she had withheld two other material objects, which she did not produce Crl.M.C.Nos.4504/16 & 5326/16 2 before the court below, for reasons best known to her. These facts are totally contrary to the case set up by the victim in her Crl.M.C.
3. Crl.M.C.5236 of 2016 is filed by the accused, who is a senior police officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, alleging that he has been falsely implicated in the case and seeking for a direction for proper investigation in Crime No. 1647 of 2015 of Kottayam Police Station. Pending the proceedings, learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the investigation has substantially progressed.
4. In the light of the nature of allegations raised by the petitioner and the facts disclosed from the CD, it appears that serious allegations and counter allegations were raised by the accused as well as the victim. An interim direction was given not to arrest the petitioner pending the instructions. Thereafter, it was submitted that in the light of the order passed by this Court, accused was not co-operating with the investigation and was not undergoing potency test. The learned senior counsel for accused undertook that the accused will submit himself for potency test as well as co-operate with the investigation.
5. When the matter was later taken up, learned senior counsel submitted that pursuant to that, accused had undertaken potency test and was subjected to interrogation. Investigation was Crl.M.C.Nos.4504/16 & 5326/16 3 almost reaching its final stage. The statement filed by the investigation officer shows that on the relevant day, victim had sent two SMS messages and made 9 calls to the accused. It is also revealed that victim and petitioner were in regular contact since 2011. This is also contradictory to her case.
6. In the light of the above submission, I find that no purpose will be served by granting any relief in Crl.M.C.No.5326 of 2016. It appears that investigation is progressing well, taking into consideration all above facts. Hence, it is closed reserving the right of the petitioner herein to move at the appropriate stage.
Having regard to the fact that section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim has been recorded and that, material objects which were originally submitted by her were sent for forensic opinion and that, victim had initially submitted that remaining material objects, which were withheld by her had been handed over, I feel that no further grievance of the victim can survive in Crl.M.C.No.4504 of 2016. In the light of the above, Crl.M.C is liable to be closed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
Sbna/3/11/16
True Copy / P A to Judge