Kerala High Court
Navas Alias Maitheen vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2020
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016
IN CC 398/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADIMALI
CRIME NO.1398/2014 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION , IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NAVAS ALIAS MAITHEEN,
S/O. LATE M.S MAITHEEN, AGED 34 YEARS,
MATTAPILLIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, ADIMALY POST,
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 561
BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY
POLICE STATION.
ADDL. YUSUF,
R2 AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
NEAR VISWADEEPTHI SCHOOL, ADIMALI P O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN -685561
(ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/6/17 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.6974/17 IN CRL.M.C.5445/16)
R1 BY SRI. B.JAYASURYA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 2
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2020 The sole accused in crime No.1398/2014 of Adimaly Police Station is before this Court seeking to quash the Final Report, which is pending consideration before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly as C.C.No.398/2015 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to that.
2. The petitioner stands chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 447 Indian Penal Code. The allegations against him was that on 25.12.2014 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioner trespassed into the front courtyard of the defacto complainant and physically assaulted him with intention to cause hurt. A complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant before Adimaly Police Station and Crime No.1398/2014 was registered by the police on 28.12.2014. Investigation was pursued with in the case by the Adimaly police and ultimately, a Final Report was prepared chargesheeting the petitioner for commission of offences aforesaid and laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. True copy is produced as Annexure A1. The Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 3 said final report is now pending consideration of the court. The petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
3. Sri.K.T.Saju, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defacto complainant is a drunkard and after consuming alcohol, was frequent in causing disturbances of peace in the locality and one such incident was occurred on 25.12.2014. Petitioner, a practising lawyer at Perumbavoor, being available at his ancestral house at Admialy then was approached by the people residing nearby to set the law in motion and accordingly a mass petition of large numbers of people was prepared by him and forwarded to the S.I. Of Police of Adimaly Police Station. The true copy of the petition and the receipt in acknowledgement obtained from the Police Station are appended to the petition on hand as Annexures A2 and A3. The defacto complainant was infuriated and therefore, preferred a false complaint to register a crime. Accordingly, Crime No.1398/2014 was registered.
4. According to the learned counsel, the registration of crime against him is a counterblast to wreck vengeance for lodging a mass petition against him.
Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 4
5. At the outset of his arguments, the learned counsel has invited this Court's attention to the Final Report to submit that independent witnesses were not cited by the prosecution to establish occurrence. According to him, crime was registered on the basis of the FIS lodged by the defacto complainant/victim and his wife alone is the sole ocular witness. According to the learned counsel, though several houses are available in the neighbourhood, none of its occupants were cited as independent witnesses to speak about the occurrence. According to the learned counsel from the factum itself, it can be discerned that the case is a false and fabricated one. It is pointed out that though the contention of the defacto complainant was that he has been fisted on several parts of his body, no medical documents are forthcoming to show that he had availed any treatment. He seeks for quashing the Final Report and all further proceedings initiated by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly in C.C.No.398 of 2015, for reasons aforesaid.
6. Statements recorded by the police from witnesses of the prosecution are made available for perusal. It includes a statement recorded from a person residing in the Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 5 neighbourhood and the said person has stated to the police that some sound was heard but, did not come out from his house to see what actually happened there. He has also stated that on the subsequent day, when enquired about, was informed about the incident that took place on the previous day. The statement of the witness is produced by the petitioner himself and it can be gathered that the incident alleged was occurred on 25.12.2014 at the house of the defacto complainant and the crime was registered based on that. It is true that independent witnesses were not cited to prove the occurrence. The only ocular witness is the wife of the defacto complainant. Victim of the incident has lodged the FIS and it finds corroboration in the statement recorded from his wife. The veracity of their version can be tested during their examination in trial.
7. Even if a medical document is not forthcoming, it will have no impact in a case wherein the offence alleged is one under 323 IPC. Even a gesture creating an apprehension in the mind of the victim that he will be injured is suffice to attract Section 323 IPC. In the case on hand, the defacto complaint and his wife have stated about the Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 6 attack of the petitioner. The defacto complainant does not have a case that he was injured in the incident. Therefore, the statement that he has been assaulted itself is sufficient prima facie to attract the offence under Section 323 IPC.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor has apprised the court that a wound certificate of the defacto complainant is available in the case diary. Therefore, the defacto complainant had attended the hospital following the incident to avail treatment. The above materials are adequate to draw that a prima facie case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner. There is reason prima facie to sideline the argument that the case is a concocted one. Therefore, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the case on hand is uncalled for.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB Crl.MC.No.5445 OF 2016 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN C.C NO 398/15 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADIMALY ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 26-12-2014 SUBMITTED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 26-12-2014 ISSUED FROM THE ADIMALY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 28-12-2014 IN CRIME NO 1398/2014 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA WITHOUT DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 19-01-2015 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE