Kerala High Court
Muhammed Muhsin K.P vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 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
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2019
CRIME NO.42/2019 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED MUHSIN K.P., AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, KOORIPARAMBIL MELETHIL HOUSE,
THOZHUVANOOR P.O., VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM- 676552.
BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI- 682031.
BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION MR.
SURESH BABU (SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:2277/2019 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.42 of 2019 of the Valanchery Police Station registered under Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 500 and 504 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation is that a facebook post purporting to be from the official facebook page of the Minister of Education in the State of Kerala was created with intent to cause ill will and feeling of hatred among members of the Indian Union Muslim League and the Youth League on the one hand and another group of the Muslim community.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all that the petitioner had done was that he had shared the post of Vadassery Hassan Musaliyar, who had expressed his displeasure to the contents of the post. It is submitted that the petitioner owes allegiance to the Indian Union Muslim League and he was just expressing his views within the limits of civility and in exercise of his constitutional right. He would refer to a catena of decisions and it is contended that none CRL.MC:2277/2019 3 of the offences alleged in the FIR would be made out against him. It is submitted that this is a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation is in the early stages and various aspects of the matter are being probed.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, it is doubtful whether some of the offences alleged in the FIR would be made out in the instant case. However, those aspects can be considered by the investigating officer before filing of the final report. It is by now settled that terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold itself, or at the stage of FIR is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and with great circumspection.
7. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently has given a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or CRL.MC:2277/2019 4 genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 516], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to reiterate that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Same view was taken in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 451], in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka [(2008) 3 SCC 574] and most recently in Tilly Gifford Michael v. Floyd Eshwar and Another (AIR 2017 SC 3823).
8. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced and having tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. Furthermore, this Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry to determine whether the allegations in the FIR are likely to be established by evidence. I see no reason to interfere with the criminal investigation at this stage.
CRL.MC:2277/2019 5
This petition will stand dismissed. However, the right of the petitioner herein to approach this Court at a later stage, after submission of the final report, if any, will stand reserved.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
krj JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
CRL.MC:2277/2019 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK POST
PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OF
DR.K.T.JALEEL.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK POST MADE BY
THE PETITIONER WHILE SHARING ANNEXURE
A1.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
07.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY DR.K.T.JALEEL.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HI-TECH CRIME ENQUIRY CELL, POLICE HEADQUARTERS.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.42/2019 OF THE VALANCHERY POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSTETRIC SCAN REPORT
DATED 06.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE NIZAR
HOSPITAL, VALANCHERY.