CRL.MC NO. 1756 OF 2023 AGAINST CC NO.144/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , PARAPPANANGADI

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV FRIDAY,THE30[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/9THASHADHA,1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 1756 OF 2023 AGAINST CC NO.144/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , PARAPPANANGADI`** ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` MOHANASUNDARAN AGED57YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAPANICKER,MELEPARAKKATTUHOUSE, KUNNUMPURAM,KUTTOORNORTH,A.R.NAGAR, – MALAPPURAM,PIN676305 BYADVS. AUGUSTINEJOSEPH TONYAUGUSTINE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :`** ``` 1THESTATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2SIVADASAN S/O.KUNJUKUTTYAMMA,PARAKKATTUHOUSE,KUNNUMPURAM, – KOTTOORNORTH,A.R.NAGAR,MALAPPURAM,PIN676305 BYADVS. VIVEK.P.K GADHA.S(K/700/2023) ``` ``` SRI.TRRENJITH,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 30.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.144 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi. In the aforesaid case, he is facing prosecution for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 23.04.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner herein attacked the defacto complainant, who is the son of his elder brother, and caused injuries. 3. Sri. Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the appreciation of the entire facts in AnnexureVIII final report would not make out any offence against the petitioner, let alone under Sections 324 , 447 and 341 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein was attacked by the de facto complainant on 23.4.2022, and based on the information furnished by him, Crime No.257 of 2022 of the Thirurangadi Police Station was registered on 24.4.2022 inter alia for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. It is submitted that the crime against the petitioner was registered on ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` 20.12.2022 after a lapse of several months. The failure of the party respondent to give a justifiable explanation for the delay in setting the law in motion is fatal, contends the learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the wound certificate would not reveal that any injury of consequence was sustained. This is despite the fact that the assertion in the complaint is that serious injury was inflicted. The police officers are acting at the behest of the party respondent to falsely implicate the petitioner, contends the learned counsel. 4. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that immediately after the incident, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the police and thereafter before the superior police officers, as is evidenced from Annexure R2(d) and R2(e). It was only when his complaints fell on deaf ears that he ventured to file a complaint before the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that after conducting the investigation, a final report has been laid against the accused. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the prayer. It ``` 4 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` is submitted that the petitioner herein has not made out a case for invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials made available. 7. I have duly considered the conflicting submissions and meticulously examined the available materials provided. 8. It has been well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offence. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal ``` 5 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as **R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), **State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in **Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others** [2021 SCC Online SC 315]. 9. Upon careful examination of the available materials and evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offence has been established against the petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning purported contradictions in the witnesses' statements, absence of serious injuries, the timeliness of the complaint, the presence of the accused during the incident, and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` Court at the appropriate stage. This Court is not justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced before court. It would be prudent for this Court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage, so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for intervention at this stage. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1756/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` ``` Annexure-IANNEXURE-I:TRUECOPYOFTHEFIR.NO.257/2022 OFTHIRURANGADIPOLICESTATIONDATED24.4.2022 AGAINSTTHEDEFACTOCOMPLAINANTASACCUSED. ``` ``` Annexure-IIANNEXURE-II:TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED 7.6.2022INCRL.M.C.NO.471/2022OFTHE SESSIONSCOURT,MANJERI. Annexure-IIIANNEXURE-III:TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERINBAIL APPL.NO.4522/2022DATED22.6.2022OFTHE HON'BLEHIGHCOURT. Annexure-IVANNEXURE-IV:TRUECOPYOFTHEPETITION SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHE SUPERINTENDENTOFPOLICE,MALAPPURAMDATED 7.7.2022. Annexure-VANNEXURE-V:TRUECOPYOFTHEPOLICEREPORT FILEDINW.P.(CRL).NO.704/2022DATED 17.8.2022. Annexure-VIANNEXURE-VI:TRUECOPYOFTHEFIR.NO.1023/2022 REGISTEREDON20.12.2022BYTHETHIRURANGADI POLICESTATIONAGAINSTTHEPETITIONERAS ACCUSED. ``` ``` Annexure-VIIANNEXURE-VII:TRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED 26.1.2023FROMTHETHIRURANGADIPOLICE. Annexure-VIIIANNEXURE-VIII:CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINAL REPORTNO.75/2023OFTHETHIRURANGADIPOLICE DATD26.01.2023. ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.1756OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` RESPONDENTANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureR2(a) ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHEOUT-PATIENTTREATMENT CARDOFTHE2NDRESPONDENT ``` ``` AnnexureR2(b)THETRUECOPYOFTHEOUT-PATIENTTREATMENT CARDOFTHEBROTHEROFTHE2NDRESPONDENT AnnexureR2(c)THETRUECOPYOFTHEWOUNDCERTIFICATEOFTHE 2NDRESPONDENT ``` ``` AnnexureR2(d)THETRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTDATED 24.04.2022FILEDBYTHE2NDRESPONDENTAGAINST THEPETITIONER ``` ``` AnnexureR2(e) ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTFILEDBYTHE 2NDRESPONDENTBEFORETHEDISTRICTPOLICE CHIEF,MALAPPURAMDATED28.06.2022 ``` ``` AnnexureR2(f)THETRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTFILEDBYTHE 2NDRESPONDENTBEFORETHEJUDICIALFIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATECOURT,PARAPPANANGADIASC.M.P.NO. 4346OF2022 ``` ``` AnnexureR2(g)THETRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED03.08.2022 INM.C.164OF2022ISSUEDBYTHESUB DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE,TIRURTOTHE2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` AnnexureR2(h)THETRUECOPYOFTHEREPLYFILEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENTBEFORETHESUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUR ``` ``` AnnexureR2(i)THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERISSUEDBYTHESUB DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE,TIRUR ```