Jamesthomas v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, West Police Station, Kottayam

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5522 OF 2023`** ## **`CRIME NO.472/2023 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :`** ``` JAMESTHOMAS AGED62YEARS S/O.P.M.THOMAS,PAMBACKALHOUSE, PRAVITHANAM,ANTHIKADUKARA, LALAMVILLAGE,MEENACHILTALUK, – KOTTAYAM,PIN686575 ``` ``` BYADVS. JOSSYKURIAN ARUNKUMARM.A ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM, – PIN682031 2THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER WESTPOLICESTATION,KOTTAYAM PIN-686001. SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 14.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF20232 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.472/2023 of the Kottayam West Police Station. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 505(1)(b) and 507 r/w Section 118(b) of the Kerala Police Act. The aforesaid crime was registered on 11.03.2023. 2. The short facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is functioning as a District Transport Officer. A procession led by the Secretary of a political party was scheduled to be held on 11.03.2023. A stage was put up at the Kottaramattom bus stand. A writ petition was filed to interdict the public meeting from being held at the bus stand. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.03.2023. Immediately thereafter, a notice was put in the boxes of various media personnel of the Kottayam Press Club, stating that there would be a bomb blast at the bus stand on 11.03.2023 after 11 am. A suo moto crime was registered. On investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was present at the bus stand between 3:48 pm and 5:02 pm on 10.03.2023. A ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` report was submitted identifying the petitioner as the person responsible for the bomb threat. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a former guest lecturer of the Devamatha College and is now engaged in various charitable activities. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 15.03.2023, and he was later remanded. He would contend that the crime was registered in the month of March. Even though several months have elapsed, the police have not collected any materials whatsoever to link the petitioner herein to the crime. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a responsible person without any criminal antecedents, and the implication of the petitioner in the aforesaid crime is a clear abuse of process. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission. It is submitted that the investigation conducted to date has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner herein. CCTV footage which has been collected also shows the involvement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that an application has been filed before the learned Magistrate seeking directions to take measurements and to obtain the handwriting ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` samples of the petitioner. It is submitted that all efforts are being taken to conclude the investigation and finalize the same, and the same will be done without delay. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. 6. Terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold itself or at the stage of FIR is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and with great circumspection. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently have given a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. ## 7. In **R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others** [2009(1) SCC 516], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the circumstances under which the High Court in exercise of powers under ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## Section 482 will be justified in quashing the FIR. In paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 it was held as follows: 14. However, Dr. Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others 2008 (9) SCC p.798, para 36, held : "36.........The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage." 15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” Same view was taken in **Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana** [1977 (4) SCC 451], and in **Som Mittal V Government of Karnataka** [2008 (3) SCC 574]. 8. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions and contentions and after having tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. The submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry to determine whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence. I am of the view that no interference is warranted at this stage. ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF20237 ``` The investigating officer shall take specific notice of the contentions raised by the petitioner and investigate the case in a meticulous manner and file an appropriate report before the court. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,** **JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.5522OF20238 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5522/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureA1PHOTOGRAPHSSHOWINGPETITIONERCHARITY WORK AnnexureA1(a)PHTOGRAPHOFCOUPEN AnnexureA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIME NO.472/2023OFTHEWESTPOLICESTATION KOTTAYAM AnnexureA3CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEREMANDREPORT DATED15.3.2023OFTHEWESTPOLICE STATIONKOTTAYAM AnnexureA4CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEMAHAZARDATED 15.03.2023OFTHEWESTPOLICESTATION, KOTTAYAM AnnexureA5CERTIFIEDCOPYOFSEIZUREMAHAZARDATED 27.03.2023OFTHEWESTPOLICESTATION, KOTTAYAM ```