Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3838 of 2016, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 3838 OF 2016 ``` ``` CC 935/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ``` ## **`KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD`** ``` CRIME NO.1085/2012 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2, 3 :`** ``` 1K.A. HUSSAIN KUTTY AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBAKKER HAJI, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ARC-29, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2FAROOQ HUSSAIN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAIN KUTTY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ARC-29, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, KOZHIKODE. 3FAHIM HUSSAIN AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAIN KUTTY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ARC-29, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. C.K.JAYAKUMAR E.SHEENA(K/785/2000) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.1085/2012, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. ``` Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 2 ``` 2MINIMOL V.K. W/O. JOY, ACHU-ANU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KALAVATH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-25.(EX-COUNCILOR, DIV.40, COCHIN CORPORATION), ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.R.T.PRADEEP ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI NOUSHAD K.A. (SR PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 3 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners claim to be persons who are into the business of erecting HI-tech Ultra Modern Electrified Bus Shelters. It is their case that they had approached the Corporation of Cochin to erect such a bus shelter at Palarivattom and according to them, they had obtained sanction for the same, as is evident from Annexure-VII Sanction Order and Annexure-VIII Site Plan. It is submitted that the second respondent, who was the then councilor of Div.40 of Cochin Corporation, had along with certain autorickshaw drivers objected to the setting up of the bus shelter. It is submitted that, on account of the obstruction caused by the second respondent and autorickshaw drivers, the first petitioner had preferred Annexures-IX and X complaints on 05.06.2012 before the Station House Officer, Palarivattom Police Station. It is submitted that no action was taken on Annexures-IX and X complaints and on 13.06.2012, the First Information Statement of the second respondent leading to registration of Crime No.1085 of 2012 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam was given leading to the registration of a FIR alleging commission of Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 4 offences under Sections 353, 294(b) and 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, after investigation into the matter, Annexure-II final report has been filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the registration of Crime No.1085 of 2012 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam leading to the filing of Annexure-II final report is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the complaint of the second respondent dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure-I) does not indicate that the offence under Section 294(b) or Section 506(1) IPC has been committed by the petitioners. It is submitted that, even if the entire complaint in Annexure-I is taken to be true, the same does not attract the offence under Section 294(b) or Section 506(1) IPC. It is submitted that, though in Annexure-II final report, certain obscene words allegedly used by the petitioners are attributed to the petitioners, the fact that Annexure-I complaint of the second respondent does not show Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 5 any such obscene word indicates that Annexure-II final report is nothing but an improvement of the case of the defacto complainant for the purposes of establishing that an offence under Section 294(b) IPC has been committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala and Another**_ , [2019 (5) KHC 950] and also on the judgment of this Court in _**Latheef v. State of Kerala**_ , [2014 (2) KLT 987] to contend that offence under Section 294(b) IPC is clearly not attracted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that since Annexure-II final report attributes certain words as having been used by the petitioners, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the subsequent statement recorded from the defacto complainant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the petitioners had committed the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that there is no case made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 6 Cr.P.C., as the proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of process of Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would also submit that, even Annexure-I complaint discloses that the offence under Section 506(1) IPC had been committed by the petitioners. It is submitted that, in Annexure-I complaint, there is a clear statement that the petitioners had threatened the defacto complainant and therefore, even if it is held that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not disclosed from Annexure-I complaint, the offence under Section 506(1) will lie against the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The contents of Annexure-I complaint (to the extract relevant) are as follows: **`"`** ഏകദേശം **`12.30`** മണിയോട്കൂടിവർകകസൈ റ്റിൽവരികയും വർകകനടത്തിക്ക ൊണ്ടിരുന്നതൊഴിലാളികളുംകരാറുകാരനുംടിറോഡിലെ പരിസരവാസികളുംന നോക്കിനിൽക്കേടിയാനുംകൂടെയുള്ളവരുംചേർനനഒരു വനിതാ ജനപ്രതിനിധിയായ എന്നെ വളരെമ മോശമായ രീതിയിൽ അസഭ്യവർഷംചൊരിയുകയുംഎന്നെമാനസികമായിപീഡിപ്പിക്ുയും പൊതുജന മദധത്തിൽ എൻ്റെസ്ഥാനത്തിനുംഅന്തസിനുംകുറവ്വരുന്ന രീതിയിൽഒരുവനിതയെന്നപരിഗണനപ പോലുംനൽകാതെ എ്ന്നോട് Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 7 പെരുമാറുകയും മേലിൽ ഇത്തരം കാര്യങ്ങളിൽ ഇടപെട്ടാൽ വനിതാ പ്രതിനിധിയാണെ ന നോക്കാതെ ഞങ്ങൾ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുമെന ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുകയും ചെയ്തു **`.`** ആയതിനാൽ ടി കക്ഷിക്കും കൂടെ വന്നവർക്കെ തിരെയും ഔദ്യ ോഗിക കൃത്യ നിർവ്വഹണത്തിനു തടസമുണ്ടാക്കിയതിനുംസംഘംചേർന്നുഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തിയതിനുംനടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻ താഴ്മയായിഅപേക്ഷിക്കുന്നു **`.”`** It is true that Annexure-II (final report) attributes certain obscene words as having been used by the petitioners. However, the fact remains that the defacto complainant had filed a written complaint dated 06.06.2012 (First Information Statement is dated 13.06.2012) and does not contain any such statement. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the mentioning of obscene words used by the petitioners in Annexure-II will improve the case of the defacto complainant. 6. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in Section 506(3) of IPC. The allegation in Annexure-I complaint to attract the offence under Section 506(1) IPC is this; **`"`** എന്നെമാനസികമായിപീഡിപ്പിക്ുയുംപ പൊതുജന മദധത്തിൽ എൻ്റെ സ്ഥാനത്തിനും അന്തസിനും കുറവ് വരുന്ന രീതിയിൽ ഒരു വനിതയെന്നപരിഗണനപ പോലുംനൽകാതെ എ്ന്നോട്പെരുമാറുകയും മേലിൽഇത്തരം കാര്യങ്ങളിൽ ഇടപെട്ടാൽവനിതാ പ്രതിനിധിയാണെ ന നോക്കാതെ ഞങ്ങൾ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുമെന ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുകയും ചെയ്തു **`.”`** Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 8 The same cannot by any stretch of imagination fall with the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of IPC and therefore, I am of the opinion that offence under Section 506(1) IPC is also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.935 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Kunnumpurm, Kakkanad will stand quashed. Sd/- **GOPINATH P., JUDGE** rkj Crl.MC No.3838 of 2016 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3838/2016`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE ICOPY OF THE FIR BEARING NO.1085/12 DTD.13.6.2012. ANNEXURE IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.935/15 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-IX COURT, KUNNUMPURAM. ANNEXURE IIICOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE MAYOR, HAVING REF.NO.999/CC/01/05 DTD.19.7.05. ANNEXURE IVCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MAYOR, DTD.14.7.2008. ANNEXURE VCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.5334/2012. ANNEXURE VICOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5334/2012. ANNEXURE VIICOPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER NO.A1 263/08 DTD.19.1.2012. ANNEXURE VIIICOPY OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL BUS SHELTER AT PALARIVATTOM. ANNEXURE IXCOY OF THE COMPLAINT TO STATION HOUSE OFFICER DTD.5.6.2012. ANNEXURE XCOPY OF THE 2ND COMPLAINT DTD.5.6.2012. ```