High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-02-04Petition disposed of

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - CRL.MC No. 578 of 2019

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 578/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2019-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: Petition disposed of. The High Court did not quash the proceedings at this stage, observed that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under 482 Cr.P.C., and directed that if an application for discharge is filed in the Sessions Court, it shall be considered expeditiously within two months from the copy of this order.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

YOUSEF P.P.
KHadeeja P.P.
SAFIYA P.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Panoor Police Station, Panoor, Kannur District
Rayees K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Anilkumar V. (Vazhharambil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Sri Amjad Ali, Sr. PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 292 of 2018, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thalassery, arising from Crime No. 1788/2016 of Panur Police Station (Kannur district). The petition challenges the continuation of proceedings on the ground that the materials collected by the investigation do not establish the offences charged—Sections 498A and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The Kerala High Court, on admission on 04.02.2019, refrains from entering into disputed questions of fact at this stage and applies the narrow, prima facie test under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: whether uncontroverted allegations in the complaint disclose an offence. The court emphasizes that Section 482 powers are to be exercised sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, and that the merits should not be decided at this stage. It refers to well‑established authorities (R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. PP Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq; Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar) to justify its approach. The court notes that the petition raises disputed questions of fact and should be resolved by the Sessions Court, where an application for discharge can be considered expeditiously, within two months from production of this order. Consequently, the petition is disposed of. The court reserves the right to pass orders on discharge if invoked in due course.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Sections 498A and 201 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly, only in rare cases, and should not stifle a legitimate prosecution.
At the initial stage, the test is whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint establish the offence (prima facie test).
Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that voluminous materials produced show the investigation has not established the alleged offences; they prayed for quashing at the threshold.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of fact not suitable for quashing under Section 482; only a prima facie view should be taken and the Sessions Court should handle discharge proceedings if pursued.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab	AIR 1960 SC 866	Mentioned Only	Cited as the foundational test for prima facie establishment of offences under 482; the present order relies on the principle but does not elaborate or overrule it.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal	1992 SCC (Cr.) 426	Mentioned Only	Cited for the general approach to quashing powers and to caution against stifling prosecutions; not distinguished or overruled here.
State of Bihar v. PP Sharma	1992 SCC (Cr.) 192	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the set of authorities on the limited use of 482; not modified in this judgment.
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another	2005 SCC (Cr.) 293	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities on the scope of Section 482; not treated as controlling in this decision.
Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Another	AIR 2017 SC 3823	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the broader jurisprudence on quashing; no distinguishing or overruling in this ruling.

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 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - CRL.MC No. 578 of 2019 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 578 of 2019** **IN SC NO.292/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-I, THALASSERY** **CRIME NO.1788/2016 OF PANUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**YOUSEF P.P., AGED 33 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.MAMMU, PULIYULLA PAREMMAL HOUSE,**| ||**THIRUVAL PALLI, POST PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**KHADEEJA P.P., AGED 50 YEARS,**| ||**W/O.MAMMU, PULIYULLA PAREMMAL HOUSE,**| ||**THIRUVAL PALLI, POST PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**SAFIYA P.V., AGED 40 YEARS,**| ||**W/O.MUSTAFA,PULIYULLA PAREMMAL HOUSE,**| ||**THIRUVAL PALLI, POST PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR**| ||**DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.ANILKUMAR V. (VAZHARAMBIL)**| ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.**| |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**PANOOR POLICE STATION, POST PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-670692.**| |**3**|**RAYEES K., AGED 32 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.MUSTAFA, PULIYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE,**| ||**POST CHENDAYAD, PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670692.**| CRL.MC:578/19 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PP.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:578/19 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C. No.292 of 2018 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thalassery. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 201 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The petitioner has produced voluminous documents before this Court to substantiate his contention that the proceedings against him is liable to be terminated at the threshold itself. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the materials collected by the Investigating officer will not make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. ## 5. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied CRL.MC:578/19 4 by the Court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, this Court will have to refrain from analysing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. Power is to be used sparingly only in rare cases and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affects the case of either the prosecution or the accused. 6. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of **R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), **State of Bihar v. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293) and more recently in **Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Another** (AIR 2017 SC 3823). Furthermore, if the petitioners have a case that the charge against CRL.MC:578/19 5 them is groundless, they can always raise their contentions before the learned Sessions Judge where the case is pending and seek for discharge. If an application for discharge is filed, the court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and on its its merits, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Reserving such right, this petition is disposed of. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE CRL.MC:578/19 6 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1788/2018 OF**| |---|---| ||**PANOOR POLICE DATED 24.12.2018.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT DATED**| ||**24.12.2018 PREPARED BY TAHASILDAR,**| ||**THALASSERY.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM REPORT**| ||**DATED 26.02.2018 PREPARED BY PROFESSOR OF**| ||**FORENSIC MEDICINE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL**| ||**COLLEGE, KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR DATED**| ||**25.12.2018 PREPARED BY PANOOR POLICE.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED**| ||**25.12.2018 PREPARED BY PANOOR POLICE.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED**| ||**19.06.2017 PREPARED BY PANOOR POLICE.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF EVIDENCE DATED**| ||**19.06.2017 PREPARED BY PANOOR POLICE.**| |**ANNEXURE P8**|**THE STATEMENT OF RAYEES, PULIYULLA**| ||**PARAMBATH, CHENDAYAD.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**THE STATEMENT OF ABDUL SALEEM,**| ||**S/O.KUNHAMMED, PUTHALATH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD.**| |**ANNEXURE A10**|**THE STATEMENT OF KHADEEJA V.P.,**| ||**W/O.KUNHAMMED, PUTHALATH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**THE STATEMENT OF SALEENA P, W/O.MAHABOOB,**| ||**PUTHALATH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD.**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**THE STATEMENT OF SHAHANAZ V., W/O.ANSAR,**| ||**PUTHALATH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD.**| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**THE STATEMENT OF BUSHRA P., W/O.HUSAIN,**| ||**CHUNDAM PUNATHIL HOUSE, IRINGANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE A14**|**THE STATEMENT OF SAMEERA P., W/O.ISHAQ,**| ||**IYYAMKATTIL HOUSE KALLIKANDY.**| CRL.MC:578/19 7 - **ANNEXURE A15 THE STATEMENT OF SAFEERA P., W/O.ALI, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHEKKYAD.** - **ANNEXURE A16 THE STATEMENT OF YOUSAF V.P., S/O.ABDULLA, SAHANAM, CHENDAYAD IS PRODUCED.** - **ANNEXURE A17 THE STATEMENT OF MUNEER V.P., S/O.MOOSA, VALLIYAYI PEEDIKAYIL, CHENDAYAD.** - **ANNEXURE P18 THE STATEMENT OF SAMEER M., S/O.KUNHAMMED, MOYILOLLATHIL HOUSE, ELANGODE.** - **ANNEXURE A19 THE STATEMENT OF ASHRAF N., S/O.KUNHAMMED, THATTAYIL HOUSE, MOKERY.** - **ANNEXURE A20 THE STATEMENT OF KHALIL C.K., S/O.AHAMMED V.P., CHERUKANDOTH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD.** - **ANNEXURE A21 THE STATEMENT OF ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MOIDEEN, THIRUVALIL HOUSE, ELANGODE.** - **ANNEXURE A22 THE STATEMENT OF SANTHOSH, S/O.KUMARAN, MOTTEMMAL, PANOOR, ELANGODE.** - **ANNEXURE A23 THE STATEMENT OF DR.GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI, PROFESSOR OF FORENSIC MEDICINE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE.** - **ANNEXURE A24 THE STATEMENT OF DR.SONAM, CASUALITY MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIRA GANDHI HOSPITAL THALASSERY.** - **ANNEXURE A25 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY KHADEEJA THE MOTHER OF SHAKEELA DATED 29.05.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A26 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SALEENA P., THE SISTER OF SHAKEELA DATED 29.05.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A27 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SAFEERA P., THE SISTER OF SHAKEELA DATED 29.05.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A28 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SHAHANAZ V., THE SISTER OF SHAKEELA DATED 29.05.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A 29 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SAMEERA P. THE SISTER OF SHAKEELA DATED** CRL.MC:578/19 8 ||**29.05.2018.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A30**|**THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY**| ||**BUSHARA P. THE SISTER OF SHAKEELA DATED**| ||**29.05.2018.**| |**ANNEXURE A31**|**THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY**| ||**ABDULSALEEM DATED 29.05.2018.**| |**ANNEXURE A32**|**THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY**| ||**RAYEES DATED 29.05.2018.**|