Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition dismissed. Bail to be considered on me...

Crl.M.C.No.1029 of 2007

Case / Petition Number:Crime No. 64/2007, Kuttippuram Police Station; Crl.M.C.No.1029 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • R. Basant
Judgment Date
2007-03-29
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is dismissed with the observation that the extraordinary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be granted as a matter of course. The investigating agency should proceed. If the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate, they may apply for regular bail, which the Magistrate must consider on merits and expeditiously on the surrender date, in accordance with law and precedents.
Final Disposition
Petition dismissed. Bail to be considered on merits if surrender before the Magistrate; order to counsel.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sameer, S/o Alavi
  • Sreejith alias Jithu, S/o Aramughan
  • Ravi, S/o Thami
  • Narayanan alias Anoop, S/o Santha
  • Vipin, S/o Srinivasan
  • Lalu alias Sreejith, S/o Vijayan
  • Santhosh, S/o Krishnan

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuttippuram Police Station
  • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (Sri S.U. Nazer)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri T. Krishnan Unni
  • • Sri C. M. Mohammed Iqbal

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri S. U. Nazer, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1029 of 2007) before the Kerala High Court, heard by Justice R. Basant. Seven accused petitioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Crime No.64/2007 registered at Kuttippuram Police Station for offences under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 324 IPC. The petition challenges the legality and maintainability of the FIR, contending that some petitioners are not from the SC/ST community and that the incident, alleged to have occurred near a public road in front of a hotel, did not take place in public view. The State opposed quashing, urging investigation to proceed and for the court not to truncate the process. The judge clarifies that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be invoked as a matter of course and that the investigation must determine whether the Section 3 allegations are maintainable against any SC/ST member. The order addresses bail, noting that the offence is triable by sessions court and that surrender before the Magistrate with a merits-based bail application should be allowed; the Magistrate must decide on merits expeditiously and in accordance with law, citing several Kerala precedents. The petition is dismissed with these observations, and a copy of the order is to be served on counsel.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) ActSection 324 read with 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 18 of the SC/ST Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent/extrordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Reluctance to grant extraordinary relief unless compelling reasons exist; investiga­tion must determine applicability of Section 3 against any SC/ST member

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that some accused are not from the SC/ST category and hence Section 3(1)(X) cannot apply to them; the incident reportedly occurred on a public road near a hotel and not in a secluded place, arguing against quashing; they urge invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C. and seek regular bail if they surrender; they also cite Section 18 and request expedited, merits-based bail decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the FIR should not be quashed at this stage since the alleged offence under the SC/ST Act is registered; investigation must run its course to establish maintainability of the Section 3 allegations and the occurrence on a public road; the court should not intervene to hinder the investigation; the matter warrants due process and safety of due proceedings.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police2003(1) KLT 339PositiveCited as authority that bail applications may be considered on merits and with expeditious disposal.
Ali v. State of Kerala2000(2) KLT 280PositiveCited regarding merits-based bail and dispositional standards.
Shanu v. State of Kerala2000(3) KLT 452PositiveCited in the context of bail and merits-based adjudication.
Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala2000(5)(1) KLD(Cri.)42PositiveSupports merits-based bail orders under Kerala law.
P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250PositiveSupports expedited, merits-based bail considerations.

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 Crl.M.C.No.1029 of 2007 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 R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2007 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1029 of 2007() ------------------------CRIME NO.64/2007 KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION .................. ## PETITIONERS: 1ST ACCUSED ------------ 1. SAMEER, S/O.ALAVI, VELUTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SREEJITH ALIAS JITHU, S/O.ARAMUGHAN, EDASSERIPPADI, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAVI, S/O.THAMI, KOLOTHUPARAMBU HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. NARAYANAN ALIAS ANOOP, S/O.SANTHA, ERAKKINGAL HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. VIPIN, S/O.SRINIVASAN, PAMPAN HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. LALU ALIAS SREEJITH, S/O.VIJAYAN, PAMPAN HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. SANTHOSH, S/O.KRISHNAN, MAYAPPANCHAL HOUSE, BANGLAM KUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL Crl.MC.No. 1029 of 2007() - 2 - RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.1029 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of March 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are accused, against whom crime No.64/2007 of Kuttippuram police station has been registered for offences punishable interalia under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. The crime was registered on 12/03/2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have rushed to this court with this petition to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the said F.I.R registered against them. 2. Admittedly, an incident has taken place at or near a public road regarding which, allegations and counter allegations are raised by the rival contestants and a crime and a counter crime have been registered by the police. Investigation is in progress in both the crimes. The petitioners pray that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings. The jurisdiction which is sought to be invoked is an Crl.M.C.No.1029/07 2 extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The same cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify resort to such extraordinary powers. 3. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioner urges two reasons. First of all, it is pointed out that some of the accused persons are members of the scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe and in these circumstances Section 3 can have no application to such accused. Secondly, it is pointed out that the incident which taken place cannot be said to have taken place in public view. These are the two contentions urged. 4. Some of the accused persons are admittedly not persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The allegations are raised about an incident which had taken place in front of a hotel by the side of the public road. I must, in a matter like this, very scrupulously avoid any expression of opinion on merits which is likely to prejudice the interests of the parties at later stages. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant materials, I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked in a case like the instant one. It is for the investigator to conduct a proper investigation and come to appropriate Crl.M.C.No.1029/07 3 conclusions. Definitely, the investigating officer will have to very seriously consider whether the allegations raised against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) is maintainable as they or some of them atleast, are members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners face a very unfortunate predicament in view of Section 18 of the Act. They cannot seek anticipatory bail. The offence is triable exclusively by a court of Session. The learned Magistrate is not also likely to consider their application for bail on merits. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued, it is finally prayed. I find no merit in the contention that the learned Magistrate may not consider their application for bail on merits. This court has repeatedly held that the mere fact that the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) is triable exclusively by a court of Session will not justify abdication of jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate to consider an application for bail on merits and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners shall be entitled to surrender before the learned Magistrate and Crl.M.C.No.1029/07 4 seek regular bail. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must consider such application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and in the light of the decision in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339] and Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280, Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452, Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [20005(1) KLD(Cri.)42] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250] . But I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1029/07 5 Crl.M.C.No.1029/07 6 ## **R.BASANT, J** C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006