High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-03-26Petition dismissed with directions to expedite ...

Chandrasenan and others v. The State of Kerala and Soman

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 3702 of 2012

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-03-26
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is dismissed. However, the 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest, and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed with directions to expedite trial; six-month time limit for disposal of the case by the 1st Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandrasenan
B. Vasanthasenan
Ajithkumar
Sujan (alias Murukan)
Sunil Dutt
Jayan
Peethambaran

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Soman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar
• V. S. Thoshin

Counsels for Respondents

• Reji Joseph (Public Prosecutor)
• P. Vijaya Bhanu (Senior Advocate)
• M. Revikrishnan
• V. C. Sarath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed in the Kerala High Court, challenging Annexure A, the complaint filed before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, in a private complaint connected to S.C. Nos. 258/1993 and 224/1994. The petitioners-accused contend that the private complaint and related proceedings have stalled for years since the case was registered in 1991, even though the main case (S.C. 224/1994) has progressed and a substantial portion of witnesses have been examined. They allege lapses such as failure to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor and seek to quash Annexure A and all further proceedings, arguing that the delay violates their right to a fair and speedy trial. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, urges expeditious disposal and argues there is no deliberate laches. The court recalls Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra on the proper exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482, emphasizing that such power is not to be used where a specific remedy exists and should be exercised to prevent abuse and secure ends of justice. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, but the 1st Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case within six months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 Cr.P.C.Constitution of India, Article 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Cr.P.C. 482
Ends of justice doctrine
Prevention of abuse of process of the court
Right to speedy trial (Article 21) as read into Article 21 via case law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the complaint in Annexure A should be quashed because the trial of the connected cases has not commenced for years, there is undue delay, and there has been a failure to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. They relied on the Court’s inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482 to prevent abuse and to secure ends of justice, arguing that continued proceedings without progression undermine their right to a speedy trial. They urged expeditious disposal of the case or quashing of the complaint to avoid further prejudice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that there is no deliberate delay and that the trial is to be expedited; the report of the Sub-Inspector indicates that one main case is concluded and the present case is slated for trial, justifying continued proceedings. The court should not exercise inherent power to quash at this stage given the availability of judicial remedies and the need to balance speedy trial with orderly prosecution.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra	(1977) 4 SCC 551	Positive	Cited for the standard limits on the exercise of inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482, indicating that such power should be exercised sparingly and to prevent abuse or to secure ends of justice, not in contravention of specific statutory remedies.
Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir	AIR 2007 SCC (Crl) 56	Positive	Cited to endorse the notion that speedy trial is an essential part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21, and that delays should be averted to prevent prejudice.

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 Chandrasenan and others v. The State of Kerala and Soman 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 P.D.RAJAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/5TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **CRL.MC.NO. 3702 OF 2012** **----------------------------------** **[S.C. NO.258/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]** **...............** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** ## **1. CHANDRASENAN,** **S/O. BHASKARAN, T.C. 47/22, PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, POONTHURA (A1).** **2. B.VASANTHASENAN,S/O .P.BHASKARAN, AGED 54, POONTHURA PUTHEN VEEDU, POONTHURA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026 (A2)** ## **3. AJITHKUMAR,** - **S/O. VELAYUDHAN, T.C. 47/48, LALITH BHAVAN, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, POONTHURA, (A3).** ## **4. SUJAN @ MURUKAN,** - **S/O NARAYANAN, NARAYANI MANDIRAM, POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAURAM (A4).** ## **5. SUNIL DUTT,** **S/O. NARAYANAN, T.C. 46/1884, NARAYANA MANDIRAM, POONTHURA (A5).** ## **6. JAYAN,** - **S/O. AYYAPPAN, T.C.47/1346, SINDHU NIVAS, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A6).** ## **7. PEETHAMBARAN,** - **S/O. KALIYAMBI, T.C.47/609, JYOTHI NIVAS, JYOTHI NAGAR, POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A7).** **BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM .S. AJITHKUMAR, SRI.V.S.THOSHIN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAIANANT:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, POONTHURA POLICE STATION - THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3702/2012:** **2. SOMAN, S/O. GANGADHARAN, VALIYAPAZHAVAR VEEDU, POONTHURA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (COMPLAINANT).** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH, R2 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.V.C.SARATH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3702/2012:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.5.91.** **ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE IN CR.NO.25/91. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.(CRL).NO.3297/11 DATED 30.11.11.** **ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C3/8723/12 DATED 8.5.12 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPOINTING MR. SURESH CHANDRA KUMAR AS PROSECUTOR TO CONDUCT S.C.NO.258/93 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ASST. ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRANSFERRING THE CASE.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3702 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash AnnexureA complaint filed before Judicial II Class Magistrate Court-1, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.258/1993 of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent and it was committed along with the main case namely, S.C.No.224/1994. The prime accused in S.C.No.224/1994 is a practising lawyer before the Thiruvananthapuram courts. He is the 2[nd] respondent and the defacto complainant in this case. The trial of all the witnesses in S.C.No.224/1994 was over and documents and material objects were marked in the trial Court. But, the trial in S.C.258/1993 is not even started, even after several Crl.M.C.No.3702/12 2 years. Actually, the case was registered on 19.2.1991. Hence, the petitioners seek to call for the records in S.C.No.258/1993 pending on the file of 1[st] Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and quash Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case is scheduled for trial in the month of April, 2014. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report and seeks a direction to expedite the trial. 4. I have perused the documents in both cases, which were furnished along with this petition. Since a case and counter case are pending before the trial Court, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the three grounds mentioned therein, i.e. to make such make such orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any Crl.M.C.No.3702/12 3 court or to secure “the ends of justice”. Apex Court in _**Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra**_ [(1977) 4 SCC 551] ## held as follows: “The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions: (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party.” The learned counsel cited the decision in _**Moti Lal Saraf**_ v. _**State of Jammu and Kashmir**_ [AIR 2007 SCC (Crl) 56] in which it is held as follows: “The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restrain imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 1[st] respondent did not take any steps for appointing a special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case and no special Public Prosecutor was Crl.M.C.No.3702/12 4 appointed by the State Government within the time fixed by this Court. 5. The report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police shows that the trial of one main case is completed and this case is scheduled for trial in April. If that be the position, I think that there is no deliberate laches or delay in disposing the above case. The decision cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. If that be the position, quashing of Annexure-A is not fair at this stage. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. However, the 1[st] Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to dispose the case at the earliest, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.3702/12 5 Crl.M.C.No.3702/12 6