Annie Mathew and Others v. State of Kerala and Circle Inspector, Kumily; Kabeer S/o Kunjumon (de facto complainant)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 7/2018 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 & 6:** - **1 ANNIE MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. MAMMEN MATHEW, BLUE ROSE AGRO PLANTATIONS, CHENKARA POST, KUMILY, IDUKKI.** - **2 KUNJUKUTTY, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE THIRUVANCHAN, PERAKKAL HOSUE, CHEKARA, KUMILY.** - **3 ABDUL KHADER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, H.M.L LAYAM, CHENKARA POST, KUILY.** - **4 NAGARAJ, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MAYAN, AMBEDKAR COLONY, CHENKARA POST, KUMILY.** - **5 ASKAR K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUBACKER, BHAMPUMGAYAM HOUSE, PANATHOOR POST, KASARAKODE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.B.ANUSREE** ## **RESPONDENTS /STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE C.I. OF POLICE, KUMILY, IDUKKI-685 509.** **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **2** **3 KABEER, S/O KUNJUMON, PUTHUVAL HOUSE, CHENKKARA P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI-685 507.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **3** ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in Crime No. 7/2018 of the Kumily Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(i), 294(b), 447 and 436 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. 3. On 03.01.2018 at about 12.30 hours, the petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the Mundukottakal Estate and after ousting the employees, who were inside two sheds in the estate, they are alleged to have set fire to the sheds and thereby committed mischief by fire. It is alleged that the petitioners caused destruction of pesticide which is used for spraying on cardamom plants, causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the allegations in the FIR will not make out an offence against the petitioners. He would refer to Annexures-I and V and would contend that the crime has been registered on experimental basis by one M.K. Joy claiming himself to be the owner of the property. **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **4** 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer would submit that the petitioners herein had approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail and this Court by order dated 25.6.2018, had dismissed the same holding that there are prima facie allegations showing their complicity. The 1[st] petitioner had approached this Court yet again and her application was dismissed by order dated 27.9.2018. It is submitted that the investigation is in the early stages and in that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings. 6. 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. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently have 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 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. **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **5** ## 7. In **R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others** [(2009) 1 SCC 516], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the circumstances under which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 will be justified in quashing the FIR. In paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 it was held as follows: 14. However, Dr. Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others 2008 (9) SCC p.798, para 36, held : "36.........The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage." 15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **6** (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” Same view was taken in **Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana** [(1977) 4 SCC 451], and in **Som Mittal V Government of Karnataka** [(2008) 3 SCC 574]. 8. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions and contentions and after having tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioners herein have failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. The submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **7** Criminal Procedure. 9. In view of the fact that the 1[st] petitioner is a lady, I direct the investigating officer to complete the investigation and submit appropriate report before the jurisdictional court without further delay. This petition will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,** **JUDGE** avs **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I FIR NO.7/2018 DATED 3.1.2018. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMILY ANNEXURE III FIR NO.933/2016 DATED 10.11.2016. ANNEXURE IV FIR NO.825/2016 DATED 6.10.2016. ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DATED 30.3.2016.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE**