Beena, Reena and Anuraj v. State of Kerala and Rajasekharan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-06-27
Court Decision / Holding: Annexure-II final report against the petitioners in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station is hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Final Disposition: Final report quashed; order issued by the High Court under inherent jurisdiction (Section 482 Cr.P.C.).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Beena
Reena
Anuraj

Respondents

State of Kerala (Circle Inspector of Police, Kalady) represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi
Rajasekharan (S/o Gokulanath Menon)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M.K. Damodaran (Sr.)
• Sri. Gilbert George Correya

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Bindu Gopinath

Case Synopsis & Summary

Beena, Reena and Anuraj, petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 5, challenge Annexure II final report in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The investigation concerns a study tour conducted on 14 February 2009 by Bavens Adarsha Vidyalaya teachers with 137 Standard VII students to the Mulamkuzhi–Malayattur region, under the petitioners and four other accused. During recreational play near Perinthodu, a ball fell into the Periyar River, and one student – the son of the second respondent – slipped and drowned. The police registered the case alleging violation of the teacher–student ratio of 1:15 during the tour, thereby constituting offences under Section 336 IPC (rash or negligent act endangering life or personal safety) and Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC (death by rash or negligent act). The petitioners’ counsel argued that there is no prima facie case; any breach of ratio is a disciplinary matter, not a criminal one, and thus the proceedings should be quashed. The Public Prosecutor maintained that the ratio was not maintained. On scrutiny, the court found no material showing any overt act by the petitioners endangering life or safety or any rash or negligent conduct causing death. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held the proceedings to be an abuse of process and quashed the final report under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 336 IPCSection 304A IPCSection 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bhajanlal doctrine (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) – quashing justified where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable; ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that no prima facie case is made out. If any violation of teacher–student ratio occurred, the remedy lies in disciplinary action against the institution, not in criminal proceedings; there was no overt act by the petitioners and no rash or negligent act alleged in the complaint. Hence, the proceedings should be quashed under inherent jurisdiction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the tour did not maintain the mandated 1:15 teacher–student ratio, making a criminal case plausible; the matter deserves investigation and prosecution, not dismissal at the threshold.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal	1992 SCC (Criminal) 426	Positive	Cited to justify quashing where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, aiding a decision to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/6TH ASHADHA, 1936`** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1324 of 2012 ()** **--------------------------CC 1622/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,PERUMBAVOOR** **---------------** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2, 3 AND 5:** **---------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SMT.BEENA, AGED 38 YEARS,** **W/O. ANILKUMAR, KOONOLIL VEETIL NEAR SREEKRISHNASWAMY TEMPLE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE KAKKANAD KARA, THUTHIYOOR DESOM.** ## **2. REENA, AGED 42 YEARS,** **W/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, ANIYATHUKULAM VEETIL, NOW RESIDING AT DIET QUARTERS, KURUPPUMPADY, OTTAPALAM TALUK, CHALISSERY VILLAGE, CHALISSERY KARA.** ## **3. ANURAJ, AGED 27,** **S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, ANUGRAHA VEETIL THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :** **---------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **(CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31.** ## **2. RAJASEKHARAN** **S/O. GOKULANATHA MENON GOKULAM THEKKE CHERUPPULLY HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI -17, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATHAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1324 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FIR DT 14/2/2009 IN CRIME NO. 190/2009 OF KALADY POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DT 17/11/2009 IN CRIME NO. 190/2009 OF KALADY POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :** **NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1324 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-II final report against the petitioners in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station, which was filed u/ss.336, 304A r/w.34 IPC. The petitioners are teachers of Bavens Adarsha Vidyalaya, Kakkanad. On 14.02.2009, they conducted a study tour with 137 students of Standard VII to Mulamkuzhi- Malayattur region under the control of the petitioners as well as the 4[th] accused. While the students were playing with a ball near Perinthodu, which fell into periyar river, one of the students, who is the son of the 2[nd] respondent, slipped and fell into the river, when he was trying to take the ball from the river and drowned in the river. On Crl.M.C.No.1324/13 2 the basis of information, Kalady Police registered the above crime against the teachers to the effect that they had not maintain Teacher-Student ratio of 1:15, while conducting tour and thereby committed the offence. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. According to him, if any teacher- student ratio is violated, the proper remedy is to take disciplinary action against the institution and not registering a criminal against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the teacher -student ratio of 1:15 has not been maintained, while conducting the study tour. Crl.M.C.No.1324/13 3 4. I have verified the averments in Annexure-II. Prima facie, no materials are produced before this Court to show that any overt act from the side of the petitioner was committed in the alleged offence. According to Section 336 IPC, whoever does any act so rashly or neglegently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished. But, no rash or negligent act from the side of the petitioners was alleged in the complaint. But, such act endangering the human life or the personal safety of others is also not mentioned in the complaint. 5. In order to attract Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution has to allege that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. There is no averment in Annexure-II Crl.M.C.No.1324/13 4 that any conduct or any act from the side of the petitioners for committing any rash or negligent act for causing the death of Nandagopan. When prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, the trial of the case is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. 6. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent power can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Apex Court in _**State of**_ ## _**Haryana** v_ . _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held s follows: “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”. Crl.M.C.No.1324/13 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-II final report against petitioners in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station is hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1324/13 6