JIDHESH @ UNNI; PRASANTH T.R.; RAJESH T.; ARUN v STATE OF KERALA and AJEESH

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV FRIDAY,THE26[TH]DAYOFMAY2023/5THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3466OF2023 ``` ``` PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1JIDHESH@UNNI AGED38YEARS S/OPALAKKALSUNDARAN,PALAKKALHOUSE,THALKKANDI, - MAMBATTUMOOLAP.O,MALAPPURAMDT.,PIN679332. 2PRASANTHT.R. AGED40YEARS S/ORAVEENDRANCHETTIYART.N,THEKKEKUTHUHOUSE, ORAVANKUNNU,MAMBATTUMOOLAP.O,MALAPPURAMDT., - PIN679332. 3RAJESHT. AGED39YEARS S/OVIJAYANT,THEKKEKOOTTUHOUSE,MAMBATTUMOOLAP.O, - MALAPPURAMDT.,PIN679332. 4ARUN AGED33YEARS S/ONARAYANAN,MOYICKALHOUSE,MAMBATTUMOOLAP.O, - MALAPPURAMDT.,PIN679332. BYADVS. T.K.AJITHKUMAR AISWARYARAMESAN HARITHAHARIDAS RAJESHBABUCHELAT ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI.,PIN682031. 2AJEESH AGED21YEARS S/OKUNHAN,ORAVANKUNNU,MAMBATTUMOOLAP.O, - MALAPPURAMDT.,PIN679332. ``` 2 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 ``` SRI.TRRENJITH,SRPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 26.05.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 256 of 2023 of the Kalikavu Police station. In the aforesaid case, they face accusation for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of the IPC and 31(s) and 3(2)(v a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR would not prima facie attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of law. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has only commenced, the case being at the initial stages, and referring to the records collected, it is submitted that this Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings 3. I have considered the submissions advanced. 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 has given a note of caution that the inherent power of quashing 4 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 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. 4. 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 the exercise of powers under Section 482 will be justified in quashing the FIR. In paragraphs 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." 5 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 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 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.” The 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] and in **Tilly Gifford V Michael Floyd Eshwar and Another (** AIR 2017 SC 3823 ). 5. Time and again, it has been emphasized by the Apex Court as well as this Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not permit 6 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defense of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even rarer. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear malafides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions and contentions and tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners shall surrender before the Court below and request that directions be issued to consider the application for bail in accordance with law. 7. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of by ordering as under (i) The prayer for quashing Crime No. 256 of 2023 will stand quashed. (ii) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Special Court and if an application for bail is preferred, with advance notice to the public prosecutor concerned, the same shall be considered, and orders shall be passed in the light of the law laid down in **Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India** [2020 (4) SCC 727] with notice to the informant and in terms of 7 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 the provisions of Act 33 of 1989 within a period of two weeks from the date of filing the application. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** Sru 8 Crl.M.C No.3466 of 2023 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3466/2023` ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES Annexure-1TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.256/2023OF KALIKAVUPOLICESTATIONREGISTEREDON 16.4.2023,DOWNLOADEDFROMTHEINTERNET. ``` ``` Annexure-2TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRANDCOMPLAINTINCRIME NO.258/2023OFKALIKAVUPOLICESTATION. ```