Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 2017
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 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 999 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 666/2016 of I ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
CRIME NO. 1817/2015 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED-A2:
--------------------
AJAYAN,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KARATHAKUNJU,
AJAYA BHAVANAM, CHATHIYARA MURI,
THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY.
3. ABINESH KALA,
AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER KALADHARAN,
SISIRAM VEEDU, MUZHANGODI, KALLELIBHAGOM,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R1 & 2BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 999 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A- A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1817/2015 OF
THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B- A TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.1821/2015 ON THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE C- A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE PETITIONER AS
IN CHARGE OF HEAD MASTER.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
-----------------------
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE.
kp
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No. 999 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 16th February, 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.The petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.666 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. In the aforesaid case, he faces indictment for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2.The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant was a former student of the G.G.H.S, Thazhava. The petitioner herein at the time of incident was the Head Master of the said school. On 23.06.2015 at 11 a.m, the de facto complainant had come to the said school to collect his certificate and he was standing in front of the office room. The petitioner is alleged to have questioned him about his presence and thereafter pushed him. It is further alleged that the 1st accused in furtherance of Crl.M.C. No.999 of 2017 -2- common intention assaulted the boy with a tea glass causing a lacerated wound on his left cheek.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. According to the learned counsel, he is the Head Master of the said school and he had only questioned the de facto complainant who had entered the school without permission. It is further submitted that for the act committed by the 1st accused, the petitioner cannot be found fault with.
4.The contentions of the learned counsel is firmly refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor, who contends that these are matters which are to be considered by the trial court. It is also submitted the petitioner has got an inviolable right to raise all their contentions before the court below at the appropriate stage and convince the court below that he is entitled to a discharge. When such remedies are available to the petitioner, according to the learned Crl.M.C. No.999 of 2017 -3- Public Prosecutor, this Court will not be justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
6. It is by now settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short- circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. Though this Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent Crl.M.C. No.999 of 2017 -4- power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
7.After going through the final report and the accompanying materials, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which, the powers under section 482 can be exercised. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused.
10.In the case in hand, it is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court below. If that be the case, the petitioner can raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate and if the court below considers the Charge to be groundless, it is empowered to discharge the accused after recording its reasons. When alternate and comprehensive remedies are available for the petitioner under the Code, this Court will not be justified in sifting and weighing the materials in a petition filed Crl.M.C. No.999 of 2017 -5- under Section 482 of the Code.
In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek for discharge at the appropriate stage.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE kp/17.02.17