Bhuvanendran and Ranjith v. Station House Officer, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1835 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.426/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRIME NO. 771/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **.......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. BHUVANENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS, TC.16/1061, K.R. BHAVAN, NEAR JAGATHY BRIDGE, JAGATHY WARD, JAGATHY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 104.** ## **2. RANJITH, S/O.BHUVANENDRAN,** - **AGED 31 YEARS, TC.16/1061, K.R. BHAVAN, NEAR JAGATHY BRIDGE, JAGATHY WARD, JAGATHY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 104.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL.** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,** - **MUSEUM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,** - **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **3. MANU , S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, TC. 16/1052, ATTUVARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR JAGATHY BRIDGE, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 104.** ## **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1835 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNX.A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.** **ANNX.A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 19-08-2013 UNDER RTI ACT FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.426/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners were shown as accused Nos. in C.C.426/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The case was originated on the basis of a statement given by the defacto-complainant, as crime No.771/2012 of Museum Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under Section 451, 341, 324, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 2 Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, as C.C.No.426/2012. They have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The persons who have been questioned are all interested and related witnesses and their testimony cannot be believed for the purpose of convicting the accused persons. So, in the absence of any corroborating independent witnesses, the possibility of conviction is remote. So according to the petitioners, no purpose will be served by proceeding the case. So, they have no other option, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and stay all further proceedings thereon and to allow this Crl.M.C. so as to secure the ends of justice.” 3. Considering the nature of allegations made and relief claimed, this court felt that, the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the 3 Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 counsel for the petitioners and the leaned Public Prosecutor and also calling for a report from the concerned court regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the case. On that basis, the learned magistrate sent a report which reads as follows: “With respect to the above subject, I may be permitted to submit as follows: The above referred case is instituted on police report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, alleging offences punishable U/Ss. 451, 341, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. In this case, accused nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the court and they were released on bail. Case stands posted on 18.04.2014 for framing charge. There are 6 witnesses in this case. It is submitted that there is no impediment for disposing this case and that this case can be disposed of within 10 months from the date of framing charge. It is also most humbly submitted that the total number of cases pending before this court as on 25.02.2014 is 8,001. Among them, 342 cases are very old cases i.e, up to the year 2009. The target fixed for this year are cases up to the year 2010. I n the target fixed for this year, said 342 cases are pending. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed me to dispose of three other cases within time frame. The above matter is respectfully placed for kind consideration.” Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 4 4. According to the counsel for the petitioners, no independent witnesses have been questioned and the persons who have been questioned were related and interested witnesses. So, no purpose will be served by preceding the case. In the alternative, it is also submitted that, the case is pending from 2012 onwards and on account of the pendency of the case, they were not able to go anywhere and they want a speedy disposal of the case as well. He had submitted that, if this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings, then a direction may be given to the court below to dispose of the case with a time bound manner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, no grounds have been made out for quashing the proceedings. 6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent Museum Police of Thiruvananthapuram, has registered a case as Crime Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 5 No.771/2012 against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 451, 341, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.426/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, and it is pending before that court. According to the petitioner, the defacto-complainant and the accused persons are relatives, but that alone is not sufficient to quash the proceedings unless the defactocomplaint comes before this court and says that, the matter has been settled and the relationship had been restored and he does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. That was not the case here. So the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in **2008(4) KHC 799 Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and others** and **2013(4) KHC 552 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Others** are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, merely because the witnesses were related also is Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 6 not a ground for quashing the proceedings, as it is a matter to be evaluated by the court and come to an independent conclusion, as to whether their evidence is reliable for enter into a conviction, ultimately against the accused persons. So, none of the grounds made by the petitioners in the petition are not sufficient to quash the proceedings, as claimed by the petitioners in the petition. 7. However, the grievance of the petitioners is genuine. The Constitution of India guarantees speedy trial, as a right for an accused, who is facing criminal trial. But unfortunately that mandate could not be fulfilled, on account of the huge pendency of the cases, pending before each court and in spite of earnest effort made by the officers, they are not able to fulfill that mandate. But however, that cannot be a ground for denying the rights to the accused, if he wants a speedy trial of a case and comes before this court, making such a prayer. Considering the fact of that, there are only six witnesses and the case is now 7 Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 posted to 18.04.2014 for framing charges and the learned magistrate has expressed his willingness to dispose of the case, within 10 months from the date of framing charge, this court feels that, though the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the case as against them, in view of the discussions made above, they can be provided with a relief of speedy trial of the case. So the petition is disposed of as follows: The petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings for the reasons stated in the judgment as the grounds mentioned are not sufficient to grant the relief and that prayer is rejected. But however, considering the fact that, they want only a speedy disposal of the case, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to take earnest attempt to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any Crl. M.C. No.1835 of 2014 8 rate, within ten months from 18.04.2014, on which date, the case is now posted for framing charges. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. _Sd/-_ K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss