Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
1
_IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_
_PRESENT_
_THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._
_MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944_
_CRL.MC NO. 5344 OF 2021_
_CRIME NO.172/2021 OF Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTST 283/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUNNAMANGALAM_
## _PETITIONER/S:_
_DR.RAJESH S. P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE M. S. PILLAI, PRIYA HOUSE, CHEVAYUR POST, CALICUT - 673017, KERALA STATE (NELLIKODE VILLAGE)_
_BY ADVS. P.MAYA M.M.DEEPA_
## _RESPONDENTS/STATE:_
_1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKODE - 673 008._
_ADDL.R3 SUMUNA P P, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.A.T.RAJEEVAN, KAITHARAN HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR P.O, CALICUT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/7/2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2022._
_BY ADV.M.RAJESH_
_THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:_
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
2
## **O R D E R**
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam, which is arising from Crime No.172 of 2021 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode.
2. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by the 3[rd] respondent herein. The allegation of the 3[rd] respondent is that on 20.02.2021 at 9 O’clock, the petitioner trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant, which was jointly possessed by the 3[rd] respondent along with her husband and cut down the branches of a plant cultivated by the de facto complainant, thereby causing a loss to the tune of Rs.350/- to the de facto complainant. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and after completing the investigation, the Police submitted the final report, which is produced as Annexure-A3. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3.
3. Heard Smt.P.Maya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent.
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
3
4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations contained in Annexure-A3 are so trivial in nature and would not indicate any culpability on the part of the petitioner to warrant any prosecution against the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that what actually happened was that the petitioner had removed certain branches of trees which were overhanging to the property of the petitioner across the compound wall, and it never resulted in any permanent damage to the property of the petitioner. It is pointed out that even according to the prosecution, what was removed is only the branches of the plants alone.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid contention. It is also pointed out that, later, based on a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant, the matter was directed to be investigated by Crime Branch and as there is an order of stay of the court, further investigation by the Crime Branch could not be conducted.
6. I have gone through the materials and heard arguments from either side. Annexure-A7 contains the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
4
same would reveal that all the witnesses have stated about the cutting and removal of the branches of the plants in the property of the de facto complainant. It is discernible from the aforesaid statements that there were some disputes between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant, who are neighbours. It is also discernible that both the petitioner and the husband of the 3[rd] respondent are doctors and both families are not on good terms. On careful scrutiny of the entire materials, it is evident that there is some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though, witnesses clearly mentioned about the cutting and removal of the branches of the plants situated in the property of the de facto complainant, it does not clearly indicate any permanent damage being sustained to them. In **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp. SCC 335],** the Honourable Supreme Court framed guidelines based on which powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked; in which some of the guidelines relevant to this case are as follows:
“(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
5
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6)……
(7)Where a criminal prosecution is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ”
6. On carefully scrutinizing the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the same, the quantum of the loss allegedly sustained (Rs 350), and the financial as well as the professional status of the parties, I am of the view that the facts of this case would come within the guidelines referred to above. The allegations are so trivial and absurd, particularly considering the status of the parties, and no prudent man could ever come to a conclusion that a culpable act has been committed. The fact that, the defacto complainant managed to obtain an order for a further investigation by the Crime Branch in the matter for such a trivial issue where the loss is only Rs 350/- only, itself is indicative of the intensity of the personal grudge between the parties. Considering the nature of the allegations and their trivial nature, I am of the
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
6
view that this is not a case in which precious time and resources of the public authorities are to be utilized. Obviously, the parties want to settle their personal scores, and it is not advisable to use the State machinery for such purposes unless there is something which justifies such actions. As mentioned above, the accused and the husband of the defacto complainant are Doctors who are neighbours at loggerheads. On scrutiny of the entire allegations contained in Annexure-A3 final report and the materials produced along with the same, I am of the view that the said allegations are trivial and absurd and not sufficient to attract any culpability warranting the prosecution for an offence under section 427 of IPC against the petitioner. While taking view, I am conscious of the fact that as per section 427 of IPC, the offence would be attracted if the amount of loss is above Rs 50/-. In this case, even though the loss allegedly sustained is Rs 350/- there are absolutely no materials produced to show the estimate of the same. As per the statement of the witnesses, what was cut and removed is only the branches of the plants and not the plants as such. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case in which the principles extracted above, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Bhajan Lal’s**
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
7
**case** (supra), can be applied. It is evident that if the prosecution is being conducted on such trivial matters, it will result in a waste of precious time and energy of the officers as well as the courts concerned. The State machinery should move on to spend their time and resources for purposes that benefit the public at large. They are not supposed to utilise the same for addressing the petty ego clashes between the individuals.
7. As far as the offence under section 447 IPC is concerned, the allegation is that the petitioner had trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant. It is to be noted in this regard that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which are produced as Annexure-A7 in this Crl.M.C would not clearly indicate any trespass into the property of the petitioner. It is discernible that the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was standing near the gate of the property of the petitioner. In such circumstances, on facts also, the allegations of the commission of an offence under Section 447 IPC are not attracted. Thus, taking into account all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that the prosecution pursuant to Annexure-A3, is liable to be quashed.
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21 8
8. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A3 final report submitted in Crime No.172 of 2021 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode and all further proceedings in S.T.No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE**
DG/28.9.22
Crl.M.C.No.5344/21
9
## _APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5344/2021_
_PETITIONER ANNEXURES_
- _Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 26.03.2021 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.172/2021._
- _Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 08.04.2021 IN CRIME NO.172/2021 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ._
- _Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 21.04.2021 IN CRIME NO.172/2021 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION._
- _Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ALLEGED PLACE OF INCIDENT AND THE PLANT._
- _Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.09.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NELLIKODE._
_Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.10.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NELLIKODE._
