Kerala High Court
Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.947 OF 2018
CC 815/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMBALAPUZHA
CRIME NO.598/2017 OF EDATHUA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
SAJITH
S/O. SHAJI, AMBALATHUMCHIRA VEEDU,
KOZHIMUKKU MURI,EDATHUA,
ALAPUZHA.
BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI M.S. BREEZ SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.947 OF 2018 2
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.815 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha. In the aforesaid case, he has been called upon to answer a charge under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
2. From the records made available, it appears that the allegation is that on 29.05.2017 at about 1 pm, while the SI of Police, Eduthua Police Station along with the subordinate officer, who is cited as CW2, were on law and order patrol duty, the petitioner herein rode a motor bike bearing registration No.KL- 66/9514 along the Thiruvalla-Thakazhi road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. He was intercepted and Crime No.598 of 2017 was registered under Section 279 of the IPC and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Later, final report was laid deleting Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and adding Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initiation of prosecution proceedings as against the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process. It is submitted that in order to attract the offence under Section 279 IPC, there should be a specific allegation that the petitioner had drove the bike in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or with knowledge that he is likely by his act to cause hurt or injury to any person. She would further contend that Section 118(e) of the KP Act will be attracted only if a Crl.MC.No.947 OF 2018 3 person knowingly does any act which would cause danger to public or failure in public safety. The allegation in the final report will not attract the said ingredients. The learned counsel would then point out that the detecting officer himself has conducted the investigation and has laid the final report. The only witness cited is the subordinate officer. Gross prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel. In order to substantiate her contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in Premchand R. v. State of Kerala [2015 KHC 2390].
4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. He would point out that Section 185 of the MV Act was originally incorporated under the impression that the petitioner had rode the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Later, Section 185 was deleted as the breath test was negative. He would contend that the allegations clearly make out the ingredients of the offences alleged and in that view of the matter, the prosecution proceedings should not be short circuited.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. It appears from the final report that only two witnesses have been cited by the prosecution to prove the charge. CW1 is the Civil Police Officer, who accompanied CW2, the SI of Police, Eduthua police station. CW2 is the officer, who registered the FIR, prepared the seizure mahazar, arrested the Crl.MC.No.947 OF 2018 4 accused, released the vehicle in interim custody, granted bail to the accused and after completing the investigation, laid the final report. Furthermore, the only witness, who has been cited to prove that the petitioner herein was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life is CW1, the subordinate officer. Even he does not have a case that the acts of the petitioner would attract the offence under Section 279 of the IPC or 118(e) of the KP Act. I am of the considered view that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would result in sheer abuse of process.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.815 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP Crl.MC.No.947 OF 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
598/2017 OF THE EDATHUA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEING CMP NO
6226/2017 IN CC NO.815/2017
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-11-2017 IN
CMP NO.6226/2017 IN CC.NO. 815/2017
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS R.
PREMCHAND V STATE OF KERALA (2015(1) KLT 32