Kerala High Court
P.N. Satheesan vs The State Of Kerala on 20 January, 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
FRIDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/30TH POUSHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3547 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO. 1592/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM
CRIME NO. 444/2011 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT
-----------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
P.N. SATHEESAN,
KUZHIPPALLY HOUSE, CHANDIROOR P.O,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. MINI, W/O BALACHANDRAN, THEKKENCHERY HOUSE,
VELLAPPAYA VILLAGE, NATTINPURAM,
M.G.KAVU, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THRISSUR.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 3547 of 2016 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------
ANNEX A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 444/2011 OF THE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION
ANNEX A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET FIELD IN CRIME
NO. 444/2011 OF THE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION FILED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
KUNNAMKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
----------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3547 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2017
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
2.The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1592 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- Kunnamkulam. In the aforesaid case he stands indicted under sections 294(b), 506(i) of the IPC, Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act and under section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
3.The de facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein, is an insurance agent. She got acquainted with the petitioner herein. Later, their relationship got strained and the allegation is that the Crl.M.C.3547/2016 2 petitioner forwarded offensive messages over the phone and also criminally intimidated her.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shreya Singal v. Union of India (2015 (5) SCC 1) submits that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and Section 118 (d) of the Kerala Police Act has been struck down as unconstitutional. It is also pointed out that nowhere in Annexure-B final report the exact words used by the petitioner has been stated and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC will not be attracted. The petitioner also submits that before an offence of criminal intimidation it must be established prima facie, that the accused had intended to cause alarm to the complainant. Referring to the final report, it is submitted that the allegations are quite vague and has been levelled to Crl.M.C.3547/2016 3 harass the petitioner.
6.I have considered the submissions made across the Bar and have gone through Annexure-A complaint as well as Annexure-B final report. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent, she has not cared to enter appearance.
7.Annexure-B final report reveals that the prosecution has cited as many as 12 persons to prove its case. Curiously enough no materials have been produced to prove that the petitioner had telephoned the de facto complainant. When the whole prosecution case revolves around the conversation that the petitioner had with the de facto complainant, its stands to no reason as to why those materials were not produced by the prosecution. It also does not appear that the call data records from the mobile service provider duly certified under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced before the court. It is, by now settled that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of Crl.M.C.3547/2016 4 the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials on record, I am of the view that the continuance of proceedings before the court below against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.1592 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- Kunnamkulam are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE vps