Kerala High Court
Jude Sajith D'Cruz vs State Of Kerala
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/29TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 5523 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 914/2012 of J.M.F.C.-III,TRIVANDRUM
CRIME NO. 220/2012 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------
JUDE SAJITH D'CRUZ , AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.(LATE) ANTONY D'CRUZ, RESIDING AT TC 44/583,
CANAL RD, VALIATHURA, VALLKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-08-2014,
ALONG WITH CRL.M.C NO.5595 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5523 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.219/12.
ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE CELL PHONE CALL REGISTER.
ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE.
ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REMAND DATED 3/2/12.
ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 4/02/2012 IN
MALAYALAMANORAMA.
ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1/08/12 FROM THE MCH
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH REFERENCE SLIP
DATED 3/02/12.
ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/08/12 FROM THE
SUPERINTENDENT DIST. JAIL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-H: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ON 13/2/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
amk
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2014.
C O M M O N O R D E R
Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner in both cases is one and the same petition. Crl.M.C No.5595/2013 is pertaining to Crime No.219/2012 of Thampanoor Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 332 and 294(b) I.P.C. Crl.M.C No.5523/2013 is in relation to Crime No.220/2012 of Thampanoor Police Station, registered for an offence punishable under Section 309 I.P.C. In both the petitions, the prayer is to quash the respective final reports pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. In Crime No.219/2012, the case against the petitioner is that with an intention to cause hurt to the defacto complainant and to cause obstruction in discharging his official duties, the petitioner on 3-2-2012 at 12.00 hours attacked the defacto complainant from his office room and abused him. Therefore, Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 2 the defacto complainant suo motu registered the case. The allegations in Crime No.220/2012 is that the petitioner, after picking up a quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused him and attempted to commit suicide by inflicting an injury on his left palm by using a scissors kept in the draw of the table of the defacto complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant is a real problem maker in the Police Department and he was in the habit of foisting cases on many persons to wreck vengeance. Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Blue Sky Port Services Pvt. Ltd. He is mainly doing business in shipping, baggage handling and man power supply. The petitioner is engaged in working at Airport, Indian Railways, Ports at Vizhinjam, Neendakara etc. He is a Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 3 contractor, who manages the parking facility at Thampanoor Railway Station. On 31-01-2012, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Thampanoor police station, Thiruvananthapuram came to the office of the petitioner and informed the manager that the defacto complainant wanted to meet the petitioner urgently in connection with a complaint by an auto driver. It was understood that an auto rickshaw parked at the parking area sustained some damages. The petitioner would contend that no such incident had happened as alleged by the auto rickshaw driver. However, the defacto complainant insisted that the petitioner should come and meet him. On 03-02-2012, the petitioner went and met the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- to the auto rickshaw driver for which the petitioner was not agreeable. Without any provocation, the defacto complainant started abusing the petitioner in filthy Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 4 language and threatened that he would be detained, if the amount was not paid. It is also alleged that the defacto complainant caught hold of the shirt collar of the petitioner and dragged him inside the police station. The scuffle caused a scratch on the hand of the defacto complainant. The police constables named in the petition also manhandled the petitioner. Thereafter, one constable drew out a scissors from one of the drawers of a table and stabbed the petitioner aiming at his stomach. The petitioner was lucky enough to dodge the same, but he suffered serious injury to his left hand. The police officers unlawfully detained the petitioner and even did not allow to contact his friends, relatives or advocate for help. The petitioner was taken to General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, the attempt on the part of the police officers was to cover up their high-handedness and to falsely implicate him in the offences. He apprehends that by getting Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 5 entangled in false cases, it may affect his prospects as a contractor for various establishments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the falsity of case can be revealed on looking into the materials relied on by the prosecution itself. Annexure A in Crl.M.C No.5595/2013 is the final report. It contains an accident register cum wound certificate showing that the petitioner hit the defacto complainant by using wrist watch and sustained a mild abrasion on the left hand index finger. Doctor examined the defacto complainant at 12.45 p.m on 03-02-2012. Annexure C is the accident register-cum-wound certificate pertaining to the petitioner. He was hospitalized in General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram at 3.15 p.m. It was narrated by the petitioner in Annexure C that the police officers assaulted him on 03-02-2012. Annexure D is the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 6 the petitioner was remanded from the General Hospital to District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram till 17-02-2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police never took him to the District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. Instead, he was taken to Prisoner's Cell in Medical College Hospital by creating Annexure F falsely. Annexure F is the reference slip from the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein one entry will show that the patient was discharged as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the other entry will show that the patient was discharged and referred to Medical College Hospital Cell, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second entry is an interpolation made by the authorities of the hospital in collusion with the police officers.
6. In Crl.M.C No.5523/2013, the same set of documents are produced by the petitioner to substantiate his case. Annexure B in both the cases is the call list showing that the petitioner on Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 7 31-01-2012 at 17.46.21 hours and 17.48.20 hours called a particular number on getting information that he was wanted by the defacto complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the number to which the petitioner made calls is that of the Circle Inspector of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that the petitioner was apprehending a foul play and he wanted to make sure that the higher authorities were kept informed before hand.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of remanding the petitioner as per Annexure D order by the Magistrate concerned, he was not taken to the District Jail. It is evident from Annexure G. It is a letter issued by the Superintendent, District jail, Thiruvananthapuram under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It shows that the petitioner was never admitted in District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram and he was not taken to Medical College Hospital Cell, Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 8 Thiruvananthapuram for treatment. It is therefore vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police officer concerned was bend upon creating false documents to justify his illegal activities.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the remand report in Crime No.219/2012 would show that the petitioner was involved in another crime of Perurkada Police Station, Crime No.324/2005, registered for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In order to controvert this allegation, the first information report in Crime No.324/2005 of Perurkada Police Station was produced for perusal. It shows that the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C in connection with an unnatural death of an infant aged about 1 > years. The names of the parties are also totally different. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant falsely indicated a crime number, with which the petitioner has no Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 9 connection, to see that he is kept in custody by some hook or crook. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.348/2008 of Valiyanthara Police Station. The refer charge filed in the above case by police would show that the petitioner is described as the first accused in the crime. However, after investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Poonthura had filed a report indicating that the case was a false case and the refer report was accepted by the court on 25-09-2009. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the records in his possession would show that the petitioner is said to have been involved in Crime No.581/2011 of Vanchiyoor police station. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced an order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C No.2914/2011 wherein the first information report in Crime No.581/2011 was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C finding that the parties have settled the matter. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is not an Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 10 accused in that case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an information received from the office of the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram. That was also obtained under the Right to Information Act. It shows that some other persons also have filed complaints against the defacto complainant for his alleged misbehavior.
10. It is an admitted case that the petitioner herein has also filed a complaint against the defacto complainant which is pending in C.M.P No.625/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also submitted that a writ petition bearing No.4535/2012 is pending before this Court against the defacto complainant seeking disciplinary action.
11. Considering the entire allegations borne out from the final reports in respect of both cases and also the materials Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 11 produced before me at the time of hearing, I am of the view that this is a classic case wherein a police officer is misusing his official position to wreck vengeance against a citizen. He even goes to the extend of showing false crime numbers in remand report to see that the accused is kept in custody without any reason or justification. The allegation that the petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant inside the police station in the presence of police officers is highly improbable. Further, the petitioner attempted to commit suicide by making injury to his palm by using a scissors is also one militating against common sense. The alleged attempt to create false documents to register a case is a factor to see that the prosecution story is per se not maintainable. It is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. In the factual situation of this case, this Court could have initiated proceedings against the defacto complainant for falsely creating documents for securing remand of a person. Learned Crl.M.C Nos.5523 & 5595 of 2013 12 counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the writ petition, he has taken steps to book the defacto complainant for perjury. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not wish to take the matter further.
In the result, the petitions are allowed. The final reports pending in C.C No.316/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram and S.T No.914/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram are hereby quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True copy// P.A toJudge