High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-05-29Petition dismissed; bail considerations to be a...

Ahammed s/o Pokkakillath Beeran and Shameetha v. Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally; Circle Inspector of Police, Chavakkad; Sivan s/o Sankaran; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.1579 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2007-05-29
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is dismissed. However, the Court directs that if the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate and seek bail in the normal course after giving prior notice to the Prosecutor, the Magistrate must decide on merits expeditiously and on the date of surrender.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; bail considerations to be addressed on surrender by Magistrate on merits, expeditiously.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ahammed s/o Pokkakillath Beeran
Shameetha w/o Pokkakillath Badarudhin

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally
Circle Inspector of Police, Chavakkad
Sivan s/o Sankaran, Kalathottikkal House, Vadanappally Village, Chavakkad Taluk
State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. M. Abdul Latheef

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. S. U. Nazer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1579 of 2007) decided by Justice R. Basant. The petitioners, Ahammed (63) and his daughter-in-law Shameetha (26), are accused under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They seek the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the private complaint and the ensuing FIR arising from Crime No. 16/2007 at Vadanappally Police Station, alleging obstruction of a pathway and vexatious proceedings intended to suppress truth. The court stresses that 482 Cr.P.C. powers are extraordinary and must be used sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances where justice requires. It recognizes that the police must conduct a thorough investigation and that quashing at this stage is unwarranted. The petitioners argued that arrest would cause grave hardship, and that bail applications could be in jeopardy, particularly since the offence is triable by a Sessions Court and Section 18 of the Act bars anticipatory bail. The court reiterates that bail can still be considered by the Magistrate on merits and that existing directives (e.g., Alice George) guide such matters. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, but with a direction that if the petitioners surrender and apply for bail, the Magistrate should decide promptly on merits."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ActSection 3(i)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ActSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 437 Cr.P.CSection 18 of the SC&ST(PA) Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases where interests of justice require.
Bail applications for offences triable by a Sessions Court must be considered on merits by the Magistrate and Magistrate retains jurisdiction to grant bail.
Interference under 482 Cr.P.C is not warranted merely because a civil proceeding has been initiated or an injunction obtained; police investigation should proceed and contexts of fairness should be maintained.
Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police laid down sufficient general directions guiding bail and speedy adjudication in such matters.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners urged that the proceedings be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) on grounds that the allegations are vexatious and the complaint does not amount to an offense; quashing would prevent imminent arrest and undue hardship. They contended that after the private complaint was transferred to police, the ongoing investigation should not escalate into a non-justiciable action. They highlighted potential arrest of a 63-year-old man and a 26-year-old woman and argued for bail considerations in accordance with law, despite the Act’s restrictions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents argued that the investigation should proceed, and that the allegations under the SC/ST Act deserve careful examination; the police must be allowed to collect facts, and the Court should refrain from quashing unless a clear lack of a prima facie offense is shown. They emphasized that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, and that triability by a Sessions Court should not divest the Magistrate of bail jurisdiction; timely arrest and investigation are essential.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ali v. State of Kerala	2000(2) KLT 280	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail can be considered by the Magistrate on merits and is not automatically precluded due to the offence being triable by a Sessions Court.
Shanu v. State of Kerala	2000(3) KLT 452	Positive	Cited as authority aligning with the view that Magistrates can and must consider bail on merits.
Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala	2000(5) (1) KLD(Cri.) 42	Positive	Cited to reinforce the stance on bail and magistrate’s jurisdiction.
P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala	2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250	Positive	Cited to support merits-based bail decisions by the Magistrate.
Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police	2003(1) KLT 339	Positive	Cited for general directions and guiding principles on bail and expedition of proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ahammed s/o Pokkakillath Beeran and Shameetha v. Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally; Circle Inspector of Police, Chavakkad; Sivan s/o Sankaran; State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2007 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1579 of 2007() ------------------------CRIME NO.16/2007 OF VADANAPPALY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 AND 2. ---------------------------------------------- 1. AHAMMED, S/O. POKKAKILLATH BEERAN, VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SHAMEETHA, W/O. POKKAKILLATH BADARUDDHIN VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPALLY. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHAVAKKAD. 3. SIVAN, S/O. SANKARAN, KALTHOTTIKKAL HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.1579 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of May 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are father-in-law and daughter-in-law and they face allegations under Sections 3(i)(v) and 3(i)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they wrongfully obstructed the complainant from exercising his legal rights over a pathway. They allegedly obstructed the said pathway and instituted legal proceedings deliberately suppressing true facts with vexatious intent. 2. The complainant had filed a private complaint. Such complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police and the police have now registered a crime. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The petitioners have come to this court with the prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to bring to premature termination the proceedings in furtherance of the complaint and consequent F.I.R registered. The allegation is vexatious. The allegations do not constitute an offence at all and that at any rate, great prejudice, injustice and hardship would Crl.M.C.No.1579/07 2 result if the proceedings were not quashed. These are the submissions made before the court. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction sought to be invoked is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and in an exceptional case and that too only if the interests of justice compellingly point to the need to follow such course. The mere fact that civil proceedings has been initiated by the petitioners and temporary injunction order has been obtained is no reason to assume that an offence under Section 3(i)(v) or 3(i)(viii) will not at all lie against the petitioners. It is for the police to conduct a thorough investigation and come out with all relevant details. I have no reason to assume that the police will not conduct proper, honest and transparent investigation and will not be able to find out true facts. I have no reason to assume that the police shall not act fairly. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interdict the investigation that is going on by quashing the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then airs his apprehension that the petitioners, a person aged about 63 years and a woman aged about 26 years may be unnecessarily arrested and detained in custody. Their applications for bail are not likely to be Crl.M.C.No.1579/07 3 considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In as much as the offence is triable exclusively by a court of Session, the learned Magistrate is not likely to consider their bail application on merits and is likely to remand the accused to custody. This would result in great hardship, prejudice and loss. Failure of justice would result. The petitioners cannot seek anticipatory bail in view of the embargo in Section 18 of the SC&ST(PA) Act. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. 6. This court has time and again laid down that the mere fact that the offence is triable by a special/Sessions court is no reason for the Magistrates to abdicate their jurisdiction under Section 437 Cr.P.C to grant bail. The application for bail will have to be considered on merits. The Magistrate does not lack jurisdictional competence to grant bail. The position has been repeated in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280, Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452, Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [20005(1) KLD(Cri.)42] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250]. 7. The apprehension that the bail application may not be considered on merits and expeditiously is also found to be without any basis. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Crl.M.C.No.1579/07 4 Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. I find no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate does not know the law or shall not follow the same. 8. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail in the regular and ordinary course after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law - on the date of surrender itself. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1579/07 5 Crl.M.C.No.1579/07 6 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007