Kerala High Court
K.A.Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2020
Author: T.V.Anilkumar
Bench: T.V.Anilkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 3896/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.906/2013 OF Koipuram Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.A.ABRAHAM
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM DANIEL,
RESIDING AT KOTTARETHUMEZUVELIL,
ANTHIYALANKAVU P.O., KADAMANITTA,
PIN - 689 649, NARAGANAM VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
SRI.SALIM KAMBISSERI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PATHANAMTHITTA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645.
SRI. UDAYAKUMAR.K.B. (P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-07-2020, THE COURT ON 14-07-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 2
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of July 2020 Petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.No.3896/2013 instituted on Annexure 1 private complaint by 2nd respondent Dy.SP of Police, Pathanamthitta before JFCM II Pathanamthitta. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 182 IPC
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he approached the 2nd respondent with a complaint against the petitioner's son in law, Sri.Mathew John that he possessed a passport obtained in a false address and was using it. Following his complaint and consequential investigation conducted in Crime No.324/13 registered under Section 465, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 12(1)(i)B of Passport Act, it was revealed that no such offence Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 3 was committed and finally the crime was referred as per Annexure A2 report. The 2nd respondent on being satisfied that crime No.324/2013 was caused to be registered on a false complaint, proceeded against the petitioner by Annexure A3 FIR in Crime No.906/2013 of Koipuram Police Station under Section 182 IPC. Since Annexure A3 crime was barred by Section 195 of Cr.PC, it was dropped and subsequently Annexure A1 private complaint was filed before JFCM II, Pathanamthitta for prosecution of the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 182 IPC.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, he had not lodged any complaint before the 2nd respondent against his son in law. Further, there are no materials on record Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 4 also to establish that any offence punishable under Section 182 IPC was committed. In this respect, he referred to Annexure A8 information obtained from Information Officer, Koipuram Police Station to the effect that no copy of complaint on the basis of which Annexure A2 crime was registered was available in the Police Station.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that in the absence of a false information being proved to have been given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC cannot be said to be made out at all. He also relied on Annexure A2 refer report and contended that there is nothing in the report to indicate that the referral of the crime was consequent upon any false information furnished by the petitioner.
Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 5
6. In order to make out an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that a false information has been furnished by the maker with the intention of causing the public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a person.
7. Annexure A8 information furnished by public information officer shows that, petitioner has not submitted any complaint before the 2nd respondent so as to put the criminal law into motion. It is seen from Annexure A2 report that petitioner was questioned in Annexure A2 crime and his statement was recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. It is not known whether the learned Magistrate who issued process against the petitioner was cognizant of or had perused the said statement at least. It is not clear on what basis, the learned Magistrate formed satisfaction as to the existence of prima Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 6 facie case justifying issue of process.
7. On looking at the entire materials placed on record, there is nothing at all to indicate that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC in as much as the alleged information or statement allegedly made by him to the 2 nd respondent has not been produced or placed before the learned Magistrate. It goes, therefore, without saying that Annexure A1 complaint is liable only to be quashed. In the result, allowing this Criminal M.C, Annexure A1 complaint in S.T No.38916/2013 on the file of JFCM II, Pathanamthitta is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE sn Crl.MC.No.1454 OF 2015 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT S.T.NO.3896/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE P2 COPY OF THE REFER REPORT OF CRIME NO.324/13 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE P3 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.906/2013 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE P4 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 09.09.2013.
ANNEXURE P5 COPY OF ADVANCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN JFCM II IN CRIME 906/2013 DATED 04.01.2014.
ANNEXURE P6 THE REPORT FILED THROUGH THE POLICE ON 10.01.2014 IN CRIME 906/13.
ANNEXURE P7 COPY OF APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R.I ACT DATED 11.01.2014.
ANNEXURE P8 INFORMATION UNDER R.I ACT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL sn //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE