High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-08-08Dismissed

Dr. P.K. Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Arshad Kalliyath

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 5382 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Babu
Judgment Date: 2018-08-08
Court Decision / Holding: The criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 CrPC is dismissed; the prosecution against the petitioner is not quashed. The court held that the petition does not warrant interference at this stage and that the magistrate’s cognizance and refer report are matters for adjudication during the trial.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. P.K. Radhakrishna Pillai

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Arshad Kalliyath S/o M.K. KALLIYATH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Rajeev

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri B. Jayasurya (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri Prasanth M.P
• Sri R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. P.K. Radhakrishna Pillai, challenges a pending criminal prosecution in CC 1428/2015 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime Nos. 555/2013 and 332/2013 at the Medical College Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 294(b), 353, and 506 IPC, with cognizance taken on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks relief under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the prosecution should be quashed on grounds including lack of proper consideration of the refer report (annex-V) by the magistrate, and that annex-VI (the protest complaint by the 2nd respondent) does not disclose the commission of any offence. The 2nd respondent is the complainant in annex-I FIR and is also the informant in other connected matters; the 2nd respondent alleged that on 13.3.2013 the petitioner abused him with obscene words, criminally intimidated him, and restrained him from discharging his official duties. The court examined delays in filing the FI statement, argued explanations for the delay, and the sufficiency of annex-VI in disclosing offences. It noted that a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed merely because one of the offences charged is not attracted, and emphasized that cognizance and refer report review are determinations to be made by the trial court at appropriate stages. The court, after considering the contentions and authorities cited, dismissed the quash petition, holding that the petition does not warrant interference at this stage. The final disposition is a dismissal of the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 294(b) IPCSection 353 IPCSection 506 IPCSection 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the prosecution should be quashed under Sec.482 CrPC on the ground that annex-VI does not disclose any offence and that the refer report (annex-V) was not properly considered by the learned magistrate when cognizance was taken. He challenges delay in filing the FI statement and asserts that the charge framing stage would reveal non-application of law. Relying on decisions like Kader v. State of Kerala and Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran, he argues that the magistrate’s oversight may vitiate the proceeding and seeks quashing on that basis.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that annex-VI discloses intimidation, abuse, and obstruction of official duties, and that the prosecution should not be quashed merely because a particular offence may not be attracted; cognizance has already been taken and refer report may be considered at a later stage. They rely on the sufficiency of the complaint to sustain the proceedings and argue that the matter involves mixed allegations; it is for the trial court to decide the exact charges during framing of the charges. They also highlight the petitioner's challenge to the refer report and insist that the court should not substitute its assessment at the quashing stage.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kader v. State of Kerala	1999 (3) KLT 262	Distinguished	Cited by counsel but found not helpful; the court noted no ground in the petition to adopt those decisions; hence the decisions were distinguished on the facts presented.
Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran	2009 (1) KHC 801	Distinguished	Also cited by counsel but found not applicable; no grounds in the petition showing the magistrate failed to consider relevant matters.

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 Dr. P.K. Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Arshad Kalliyath 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 A.M.BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940 Crl.MC.No. 5382 of 2016 CC 1428/2015 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO. 332/2013 OF MECICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM ## PETITIONER/ACCUSED DR. P.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 78 YEARS, S/O N.KRISHNA PILLAI, CC NO.14/1690, ROHINI, FOREST OFFICE LANE, THYCAD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV.SRI.S.RAJEEV ## RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031 (CRIME NO.555/2013 ,MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 2. ARSHAD KALLIYATH S/O M.K.KALLIYATH, VARA 309, MOHAN HILL VIEW LANE, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRASANTH M.P R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.7.2018, THE COURT ON 08-08-2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5382 of 2016 ## ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.555/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.332/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-04-2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.1957/2013 ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT IN CRIME NO.555/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE VI CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CMP NO.1805/13 /True Copy/ P.S.To Judge ## A.M.BABU, J. - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.5382 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 8[th] day of August, 2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## ORDER - 1.Petitioner is the accused in C.C.1428/2015. The same is a case pending in the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Secs 294(b), 353 and 506 of IPC. Cognizance was taken against him upon a complaint. The complaint was filed by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner seeks to quash the criminal prosecution against him. The relief is sought under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. - 2.The petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent are medical doctors. Annex-I FIR was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the first information statement given by the 2[nd] respondent. The investigating officer filed annex-V final report. It was a negative **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** report requesting to close the case as a “mistake of fact or law”. The 2[nd] respondent filed annex-VI protest complaint. He alleged therein that at 11.00 am on 13.3.2013 he was abused by the petitioner with obscene words, that the latter criminally intimidated the former and that the petitioner prevented the 2[nd] respondent from discharging his official duty. - 3.Heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned public prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. - 4.The 2[nd] respondent is the accused in annex-II and annex-IV cases. Annex-II FIR was registered on the basis of the FI statement given by the daughter of the petitioner. The ## **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** said case is stated to be under investigation. Annex-IV is the final report in C.C.1957/2013 in which the 1[st] informant is the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that departmental action has been taken against the 2[nd] respondent on the complaint of the daughter of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the FI statement in annex-I FIR is a counterblast to the complaint filed by his daughter against the 2[nd] respondent. The truth in the said allegation cannot be decided in the present proceedings as it is a matter for evidence and in the realm of the defence of the petitioner in C.C.1428/2015. - 5.The incident alleged in annex-I FIR allegedly occurred on 13.3.2013. But the FI statement was given only on 24.3.2013. According to the petitioner, the delay in reporting the matter to the police was not explained. The said contention of the petitioner is not correct. ## **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** 4 The 2[nd] respondent has given an explanation in his FI statement for the delay. He stated that the FI statement was delayed since he had given a complaint to the superintendent of the hospital on the date of incident itself. Is the explanation true or sufficient is also a matter for evidence and therefore cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. 6.Another contention of the petitioner is that annex-VI complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence. I have perused annex-VI. The 2[nd] respondent has alleged at paragraph 10 of his complaint that he was wrongfully restrained to prevent him from discharging his official duty, that he was criminally intimidated with the threat to cause his death and that he was abused with obscene words. The words allegedly used by the petitioner, which according to the 2[nd] **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** 5 respondent are obscene, are mentioned in annex-VI complaint. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that annex-VI complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence. His learned counsel has submitted that assault or use of criminal force is not alleged in the complaint to attract Sec.353 of IPC. Let the learned additional chief judicial magistrate take a decision at the time of framing charge or stating the particulars of offences to the accused, if the case reaches that stage, whether the offence under Sec.353 of IPC is attracted. A criminal prosecution cannot be quashed even if one of the offences alleged against an accused is not attracted. 7.Yet another contention of the petitioner is that cognizance was taken against him without even considering annex-V refer report. The said contention is taken by the petitioner **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** 6 without even producing the order as per which the learned magistrate had taken cognizance. Therefore the said contention cannot be taken seriously. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions, namely, (i) Kader v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 262) and (ii) Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran (2009 (1) KHC 801). Those decisions are not helpful to the petitioner since there are no grounds in the petition other than those considered by me already. The aforenoted decisions are of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as he has not taken a ground in the petition that the learned additional chief judicial magistrate did not consider any matter which he ought to have considered. All what is stated in the petition is only that annex-V refer report was not considered by the learned magistrate. That is a vague 7 ## **Crl.M.C.5382/2016** contention without stating as to where did the learned magistrate precisely go wrong in taking cognizance. - 9.The Crl M.C fails. The same deserves only a dismissal. ## 10.Dismissed. ## **Sd/-** A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/6.8. /True copy/ P.S.To Judge