M. Shajideen v. State of Kerala and Sobha Ajith

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Crl.M.C.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 IN CRL.M.P.NO.714/2017 IN CC 3242/2014 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO.1262/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **M.SHAJIDEEN, FLAT NO.A & B, MARVEL MANSION, GOWREESAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.A.MEGHA SMT.ALEENA K BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 682031. 2 MRS.SOBHA AJITH, PROPRIETRESS, SPACE DESIGNERS ENGINEERS & BUILDERS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KAUSTHUBHAM, T.C.11/1535-1, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003.** **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **2** ## **BY ADV.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN R2 BY ADV. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **3** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5474 of 2019 -----------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of December, 2020** ## **ORDER** The prayer in the afore-captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is as follows: _“....to set aside Annexure XIII Final Report and Annexure XVIII order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.M.P.No.714/2017 in C.C.3242/2014.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (sole accused), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1–State of Kerala and Sri.Ajith.G. Anjarlekar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2 (lady de facto complainant). 3. The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the impugned Annexure-X FIR in Crime No.1262 of 2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station, registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the 2[nd] respondentlady de facto complainant on 25.07.2013 for offences punishable under Secs. 354A and 509 of the IPC, in respect of the alleged incidents, which happened on 08.05.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. The Police after **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **4** investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-XIII final report/charge sheet on 28.11.2014 in the impugned Annexure-X Crime No.1262 of 2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station, in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC. After taking cognizance, the case is now pending as Calendar Case, CC No.3242 of 2014 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On the application for discharge filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has passed Annexure-XVIII order dated 11.07.2019 on Crl MP No.714 of 2017 in the said CC No.3242 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been discharged in respect of the offence alleged as per Section 354A of the IPC and the plea for discharge has not been allowed in respect of remaining offence, viz. Section 509 of the IPC. Hence as of now, the sole allegation as against the petitioner/accused is the one as per Section 509 of the IPC. It is the abovesaid criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned Annexure XIII final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.1262 of 2013, as modified by the abovesaid order of discharge, whereby the petitioner is now alleged to have committed the offence as per Section 509 of the IPC, that is under challenge in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case. **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **5** ## 4. The factual aspects pointed out in this petition are broadly ## as follows: _“1. The petitioner was introduced to the 2nd respondent and her husband, who are alleged to be reputed builders and intending to construct a multi storied building in a property having 18.79 cents and further belonging to one Sri. Asok Kumar and Ambili Asok Kumar settled at London. The petitioner entered into an agreement with them for purchasing an apartment, on 30.01.2009, for a consideration of Rs.42 lakhs. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner had also entered into an agreement for purchase of another apartment in second floor, for consideration of Rs.60 lakhs. The petitioner paid the entire amount by 27.02.2009 and after receipt of the full consideration, the behavior of these two people had considerably changed. Since there was no move to complete the construction, a notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner on 01.06.2011, calling upon them to complete the construction and register the Sale Deed. The builders failed to complete the work, thereby constraining the petitioner and his wife to file O.S.1295/2011 and 1296/2011 for specific performance, before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram._ _2. After the institution of the above two suits, the 2nd respondent and her husband were harassing the petitioner in every conceivable manner. The two suits, i.e. O.S.1295/2011 and 1296/2011 were thereafter referred to the Lok Adalat and by order dated 09.06.2012 in Lok Adalat Case No.140/2012 and 144/2012, the two suits were decreed in accordance with the compromise petition, jointly filed by the petitioner and the 2nd petitioner and her husband, whereby they had agreed to execute the sale deeds within 30 days. The 2nd respondent and her husband failed to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Lok Adalat, constraining again the petitioner to file the two Execution Petitions as EP No.724/2012 in O.S.No.1296/2011 and E.P.No.725/2012 in O.S.No.1295/2011, wherein the petitioner had sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent and her husband to execute the sale deeds, in respect of the flats. The 2nd respondent and her husband annoyed at the filing of the Execution Petitions, continued to harass the petitioner. Thereafter on 08.05.2013, at the Cellar portion of the building, the husband of the 2nd respondent, his driver, and another employee, rushed towards him and the husband of the 2nd respondent, took out a spade and aimed at his head. When the petitioner managed to get into his car, he was pulled out and abused. He had also caught hold of the neck and threatened the petitioner._ _3. The petitioner and his wife went to the Medical College Police Station and lodged Annexure I complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, of the aforesaid incident at about 1 p.m. on 08.05.2013 itself. Annexure II receipt will acknowledge the receipt of Annexure I complaint. After the aforesaid incident they were again continuously threatening the petitioner, with the sole intention that they do not execute the sale deed, despite receiving nearly one crore rupees for the apartments. It was thereafter understood that the 2nd respondent, after her husband was called to the Police Station on 08.05.2013, filed a complaint on 10.05.2013, to the Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Cell, alleging that the petitioner had attempted to outrage her modesty at 6.30_ **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **6** _p.m. on 08.05.2013, in the Cellar of the Apartment, the petitioner and his family are residing. The petitioner was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Cell and in turn the petitioner had apprised the latter, about what transpired on 08.05.2013. The aforesaid petition was forwarded from the Vanitha Cell as per Annexure V letter dated 17.05.2013 of the Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Cell, to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, for enquiry._ _4. The Circle Inspector of Police, after receiving Annexure IV complaint and Annexure V letter, had been conducting the investigation. He had taken statements of several persons including the petitioner, Sri.Sukumara Pillai, another resident there, Appukuttan, Night Security of the Apartment and the 2nd respondent, marked as Annexures VI, VII, VIII and IX respectively. While the Circle Inspector of Police, was conducting the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, alleging that he had received information through phone on 25.07.2013 that the petitioner abused the 2nd respondent and further attempted to catch hold of her on 08.05.2013 at about 6.30 pm., while she was moving towards the Cellar of the flat. He had gone along with the woman Constable to the residence of the 2nd respondent and took down a statement, alleged to be the First Information Statement and on the basis of the same, registered Annexure X FIR in Crime No.1262/2013 for offence under Section 354A and 509 IPC against the petitioner. There was a delay of more than 77 days and further when a complaint was filed with the Vanitha Cell on 10.05.2013, with respect to the very same incident and under investigation by the Circle Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, the statement given on 25.07.2013 can never be considered as the First Information Statement. It is evident from Annexure XI letter dated 07.09.2013, received under Right to Information Act that for the period from 20.07.2013 to 26.07.2013, the Circle Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station had been in connection with the investigation of a case, in the State of Maharashtra. Admittedly, the First Information Report in Crime No.1262/2013 was registered following the statement of the 2nd respondent dated 25.07.2013, at a point of time, when the Circle Inspector of Police, was not in station. They were waiting for this opportunity, to register the case against the petitioner. This amounts to abuse of process of law._ _5. The petitioner challenging Annexure X FIR and aggrieved by the conduct of the Sub Inspector of Police, in not investigating into his complaint filed W.P.(c)No.25993/2013 before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of Annexure XII judgment came down heavily on the subsequent registration of the case against the petitioner, while the Circle Inspector of Police was conducting the investigation. The Writ Petition was disposed of with direction to keep Ext.P22 therein, i.e. FIR in Crime No.1262/2013 (Annexure X FIR herein) in abeyance, until the completion of the enquiry by the Circle Inspector of Police. The 1st respondent, showing scant respect to the direction contained in Annexure XII judgment had not only continued the investigation, but filed Annexure XIII final report in Crime No.1262/2013, which was taken on file as C.C.3242/2014 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 354A and 509 IPC. The registration as well as the subsequent filing of a Final Report, while the investigation/enquiry was being carried out by the Circle Inspector of Police, and further by clearly flouting the directions in Annexure XII judgment, is an abuse of process of law warranting interference from_ **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **7** _this Hon’ble Court. Though the petitioner filed Annexure XVII petition, seeking to discharge him, unfortunately, by Annexure XVIII order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, had only discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 354A IPC holding that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner under Section 509 IPC. Paragraph 7 of Annexure XVIII order, is the answer, as to how the Court below had understood the directions of this Hon’ble Court in Annexure XII judgment, more particularly paragraphs 13 to 15, pertinently reads as follows:_ “ _7. As per Section 239 Cr.P.C., this court has limited power to consider whether the charge is groundless or not. So, I am of the view that at this stage, only on the basis of the allegation that Hon’ble High Court had given some directions to the investigating Officer and he did not comply the directions and hence the accused is to be discharged u/s 239 Cr.PC does not deserve any merit.”_ It is in light of the above submissions and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the aforementioned prayer. 5. After hearing both sides and after going through the materials on record, the following aspects are evident:- That there was a dispute between the petitioner and the husband of the 2[nd] respondent in respect of the transactions mentioned hereinabove. This has led to the petitioner instituting two civil suits as, OS No.1295 of 2011 and 1296 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The matter was thereafter referred to Lok Adalath under the provisions of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 and by order dated 09.06.2012 in Lok Adalath Case Nos.140/2012 and 144/2012, the two suits were decreed in accordance with the compromise petitions jointly filed by the petitioner herein and the 2[nd] **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **8** respondent & her husband, whereby they have agreed to execute sale deeds within thirty days. It appears that the 2[nd] respondent and her husband had failed to comply with the said direction of the Lok Adalath Award, which constrained the petitioner to file two execution petitions as EP Nos.724 of 2012 in OS No.1296 of 2011 and E.P.No.725 of 2012 in the other suit concerned viz. OS No.1295 of 2011, wherein the petitioner had sought for a direction to the 2[nd] respondent and her husband to execute sale deeds in respect of the flats concerned. 6. Further, the petitioner would state that the 2[nd] respondent and her husband had thus longstanding animosity against the petitioner for having ventilated his grievances in the manner known to law for having obtained legally enforceable awards against them and that too, on the basis of the voluntary compromise entered into by them with the petitioner and which resulted in execution petitions, which was later blatantly violated by the 2[nd] respondent and her husband, which has compelled the petitioner to initiate execution proceedings before the civil court for enforcement of the Lok Adalath Awards in terms of the provisions contained in the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner would further point out that as a matter of fact, on 08.05.2013 at about 12 Noon, he was assaulted in the ground floor of the flat in question, by the 2[nd] respondent’s husband **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **9** and his henchmen and that he had immediately thereafter had submitted Annexure I complaint/petition dated 08.05.2013 before the Station House Officer/ Circle Inspector of Police of the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station. The fact that the petitioner had submitted Annexure I petition dated 08.05.2013 before the SHO concerned is evident from Annexure II receipt dated 08.05.2013 issued by the SHO concerned. According to the petitioner, the Police authorities had immediately called the 2nd respondent’s husband and warned him. Further, according to the petitioner, since the Police did not take any effective action on the complaint made by the petitioner as referred in Annexure I complaint dated 08.05.2013, he was constrained to file a detailed petition/complaint before the Home Minister, as per Annexure III dated 14.05.2013, wherein details of the incidents are narrated by him. Further, it appears that it is thereafter that the 2[nd] respondent has filed Annexure-IV petition dated 10.05.2013 before the Superintendent of Police of the Women Cell (Vanitha Police) complaining about certain incidents which are said to have happened firstly, at ll.30 a.m. on 08.05.2013 and later at 6.30 p.m. on the same day (08.05.2013). In para No.1 of Annexure-IV petition dated 10.05.2013, the 2[nd] respondent has made various allegations that on account of the animosity of the petitioner, he used **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **10** to frequently abuse her with filthy words and sexually coloured words, etc. In paras Nos.3 and 4 of Annexure IV petition dated 10.05.2013 (on internal pages 2 and 3 thereof - see pages 34 and 35 of the paper book of the Crl. M.C), the 2nd respondent would state as follows: “3. 08.05.2013 രരാവവിലലെ 11.30 ഓലടെ എൻലറെ ഭർതരാവു വർകക നനരാക്കുവരാൻ വർകക സസൈറവിൽ ലചെന് **ന** പരാൾ അവവിടെലത ഫരാറവിൽ തരാമസൈമുള ഇയരാൾ എൻലറെ ഭർതരാവവിലന വടെവിയുമരായവി ആക്രമവികരാൻ ലചെല്ലുകയുയ . ഈ എലന്നക്കുറെവിചക വളലര നമ്ലേച്ഛമരായ ഭരാഷയവിൽ അസൈഭഭയ പറെയുകയുയ ലചെയ വവിവരയ എൻലറെ ഭർതരാവു ലമഡവികൽ നകരാനളജക നപരാലെലീസൈക നസ്റ്റേഷനവിൽ പരരാതവി , . നൽകുകയുയ എലന്ന വവിളവിചറെവിയവിച പ്രകരാരയ ഞരാനയ അവവിലടെലയത്തുകയുണരായവി ഞങ്ങൾ C.I.- ലയ കണനശേഷയ പുറെതവിരുന് **ന** പരാൾ ഇയരാൾ അവവിലടെ വചക എലന്ന വളലര നമരാശേമരായ രലീതവിയവിൽ sexually coloured ആയവിട്ടുള, നലീ പലെനരരാടയ . കവിടെന്നവിട്ടനല്ലേടെവി നവിലന്റെ ഭർതരാവവിനക കരാശുണരാക്കുന്നതു ഇനവി എനന്നരാടയ ഒരു . . ദവിവസൈയ വരാ കുറെച്ചു കരാശു തരരായ ഇവൻ എലന്റെ ശേത്രുവരാണക ഇവനക ഞരാൻ . പണവി നവലറെ ലകരാടകരായ എന്നലീ രലീതവിയവിൽ സൈയസൈരാരവിക് **ക** ു യുയ ലചെയ 4. വഴക്കുയ നപരാലെലീസൈക പരരാതവിയുലമല്ലേരായ കരാരണയ ടെവി ദവിവസൈയ സവകുനന്നരയ ഏകനദശേയ 6-6.30 ഓലടെ ഭർതരാവവിലന അവവിലടെ കൂടെരാലത ഞരാൻ , വർകക സസൈറരായ മരാർവൽ മരാൻഷൻ ഗഗൗരലീശേപട്ടത്തു നപരാവുകയുയ അന്നലത നജരാലെവി ഇവരാലെല്യുനവറക ലചെയ്ത നശേഷയ അവവിടെലത ലസൈകക്യൂരവിറവിലയ തവിരഞ്ഞു cellar floorൽ നപരായവി നനരാകവി . ഈ സൈമയത്തു അപ്രതലീകവിതമരായവി ഇയരാൾ കടെന്നുവരവികയുയ നനരലത പറെഞ്ഞ unparliamentary വരാക് **ക** ു ൾ പറെയുകയുയ . എലന്ന ഉപദ്രവവികരാനയ കയറെവി പവിടെവികരാനയ ശ്രമവിച്ചു ആദഭയ ലഞട്ടവിനപരായ ഞരാൻ . വളലര ബുദവിമുട്ടവി ഇവവിലടെ നവിന്നുയ രകലപട്ടു ഇതവിനമുൻപക പലെ പ് **ര** വശേഭയ ഇയരാൾ ഈ രലീതവിയവിൽ ലപരുമരാറെവിയനപരാൾ എൻലറെ മരാനഭതലയ ഓർത്തു ഞരാൻ സൈഹവിക് **ക** ു യുയ മരാനസൈവികമരായവി വളലരയധവികയ ബുദവിമുട്ടവി എൻലറെ കുട്ടവികലളനപരാലയ നനരാകരാൻ പറരാത അവസ്ഥയവിലെരാണക ഞരാനവിനപരാൾ .” 7. A reading of Annexure-IV petition dated 10.05.2013, more particularly paras 3 and 4, would make it clear like the daylight that the 2[nd] respondent has raised a very pinpointed and precise allegation in para No.3 thereof that the first incident is said to be happened at 11.30 a.m. on 08.05.2013. That when she had gone to the worksite of the flat on 08.05.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning, the petitioner, who **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **11** was residing in the said flat, had come over there and attempted to beat her with a stick and then had used extremely vulgar and filthy language, which are minutely described therein. Further in para No.3 of Annexure IV, the 2[nd] respondent would assert that immediately after the said incident, which occurred on 08.05.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning, her husband had immediately informed the Police Station authorities of the Medical College Police Station and had in fact given a petition to the said Police Station about the said incident, which happened on 08.05.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. At the outset it has to be stated that very strangely, the said petition said to have been given by the 2[nd] respondent’s husband immediately after the first incident, which is said to be happened on 08.05.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. has never been made available in any of the proceedings, be it either as part of the preliminary enquiry, which has been conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police or by the SHO, who conducted the investigation in the impugned crime that has been subsequently registered. It appears that the abovesaid so-called first petition given on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent by her husband before the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police authorities immediately after the first incident, which has allegedly happened on 08.05.2013 at about 11.30 morning, has been completely **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **12** suppressed in all these proceedings before this Court. That apart, a reading of Annexure-IV, more particularly paras Nos.3 and 4 thereof would make it clear like the daylight that the specific case of the 2[nd] respondent that two separate and distinct incidents have occurred, both on the same day, one at 11.30 a.m. in the morning as described in para No.3 of Annexure-IV and the other at 6 to 6.30 p.m. on the same day, as alleged para No.4 of Annexure IV. In paragraph No.4 of Annexure IV, the 2[nd] respondent would allege that again when she had gone to the worksite, which appears to be within the precincts of the flat premises between 6 and 6.30 p.m. on 08.05.2013, the petitioner had again come there at the cellar floor and had used unparliamentary and abusive words at her and had even attempted to grab her and with great effort she had escaped from there, etc. It appears that since Annexure-IV petition dated 10.05.2013 was submitted by the 2[nd] respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Police Cell, the same appears to have been treated by the said Superintendent of Police as a matter for petition enquiry and has thereby forwarded Annexure-IV to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station for petition enquiry, as can be seen from Annexure-V forwarding letter dated 17.05.2013. Further it appears that the Circle Inspector of Police, who was entrusted the said petition enquiry on the **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **13** allegations in Annexure-IV, has thereafter conducted petition enquiry and has taken statements from various witnesses, as can be seen from Annexures VI, VII, VIII & IX produced in the Crl MC. Annexure VI is the statement given by one Moideen, a resident of the same apartment, who would state that he is also residing in the same flat and that he has come to know of the litigative proceedings as between the petitioner nd and the 2 respondent’s husband and also about the filing of the execution petition before the civil court and that the entire transactions regarding the flats were between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent’s husband and that he has not seen any direct dealings or conversation as between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent at any point of time. Further that he came to know that the petitioner was assaulted by the 2[nd] respondent’s husband on 08.05.2013 in the afternoon and that the petitioner had immediately given complaint to the Police, etc. and that the Police Officer concerned had warned the 2[nd] respondent’s husband, etc. Further he would state that on 08.05.2013 between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., the petitioner was not in said flat and that he has reasons to believe that the allegations raised by the 2[nd] respondent and her husband against the petitioner are false and untrue, etc. Annexure-VII is the statement given by yet another resident in the same flat. He would state that, to the best of his **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **14** information and knowledge, the petitioner has been living as a good gentleman in the flat and he was never in the habit of quarreling or disputing with anybody in the flat. Further that he has come to know that there were monitory disputes between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent’s husband on account of the advance payments made by the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent’s husband for the flat transaction and that the allegation that the petitioner is a money lender, etc. is absolutely false. Further that on 08.05.2013 in the afternoon, he had seen the petitioner, coming out of the area in question with the bleeding nose. Presumably, the said witness is stating about the incidents alleged by the petitioner in Annexure-I complaint dated 08.05.2013 made as against the alleged assault made by the 2[nd] respondent’s husband against the petitioner. Further, the said witness would categorically state that on the day in question (08.05.2013) between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., the petitioner was with the said witness in his flat for the purpose of drafting a detailed complaint to the Governmental authorities. He would also state that, on account of the cheating done by the 2[nd] respondent’s husband, the said witness was also constrained to approach the consumer court against the 2[nd] respondent’s husband, who is a builder, etc. Annexure-VIII is a statement given by a person, who is stated to be employed as a security **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **15** personnel in the said flat. He would state that he doesn’t directly know the 2[nd] respondent and that while he was employed as security personnel in the flat, he has seen her only once there. Further that he has left the job as security personnel in the said flat in July 2013, etc. Annexure-IX is a statement given by none other than the 2 nd respondent in the said petition enquiry. Very crucially therein she has completely omitted to state about any of the allegations regarding the first incident which is said to be happened at 11.30 a.m. on 08.05.2013. A perusal of Annexure IX statement given by the 2[nd] respondent before the Circle Inspector of Police would make it clear like in the daylight as if her case is that only one incident has happened i.e. on 08.05.2013 at 6.30 p.m. 8. It appears that the Circle Inspector of Police, who has conducted petition enquiry on the matter in Annexure- IV complaint, has taken the statements of the witnesses as referred to in Annexures V, VI, VII, VIII and IX etc. Thereafter, it appears from a reading of Annexure XI letter given in reply to RTI proceedings that the said officer was out of Kerala and was then in Bombay for the period from 20.07.2013 to 26.07.2013. It appears that at that point of time the 2[nd] respondent has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police concerned in order to register a crime in respect of the alleged **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **16** incidents in question. Thereupon, it appears that the said Police Officer has registered Annexure-X FIR in crime No.1262 of 2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station on 25.07.2013 after taking a statement of the 2[nd] respondent as First Information Statement on 25.07.2013 in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 08.05.2013 at 6.30 p.m. Annexure-X First Information Statement dated 25.07.2013 would make it clear that her case is as if only one incident has happened i.e. the one at 08.05.2013 at 6.30 p.m. The 2[nd] respondent could not make any allegation whatsoever either in Annexure X statement given before the Circle Inspector of Police as part of the petition enquiry or in Annexure-X First Information Statement given on 25.07.2013 about any incident, which is said to be happened on 08.05.2013 about 11.30 a.m. in the morning. The operative portion of Annexure X reads as follows: "ഞരാൻ ലസൈല്ലേരാറെവിലന്റെ step ഇറെങ്ങവി നപരാകുന്ന വഴവി ഷരാജവിദലീൻ ലസൈല്ലേരാറെവിൽ നവിന്നുയ step വഴവി മുകളവിനലെക്കു നകറെവി വരവികയരായവിരുന്നു. എലന്ന കണതുയ എനന്നരാടെക വളലര നമരാശേമരായ രലീതവിയവിൽ sexually coloured ആയവിട്ടുള നലീ പലെനരരാടയ കവിടെന്നവിട്ടലല്ലേടെവി കരാശുണരാക്കുന്നതു. ഇനവി എനന്നരാടയ ഒരു ദവിവസൈയ വരാ. കുറെച്ചു കരാശു തരരായ എന്നുയ മറയ പറെഞ്ഞു. എലന്ന ഉപദ്രവവികരാനയ നകറെവിപവിടെവികരാനയ ശ്രമവിച്ചു. ഞരാൻ ഉടെലന തലന്ന അവവിലടെ നവിന്നുയ ഓടെവി വന്നു കരാറെവിൽ നകറെവി. ഈ സൈമയവുയ അയരാൾ അവവിലടെനവിന്നുയ ഉറെലക ചെലീത വവിളവിക്കുന്നുണരായവിരുന്നു." 9. Since the petitioner was under the impression that the petition enquiry entrusted by the Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Police Station was still pending at the hands of the Circle Inspector of **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **17** Police as referred to in Annexure-V, etc. and since the crime was registered unilaterally at the instance of a subordinate officer, viz. Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner was constrained to approach to this Court by filing WP(C) No.25993 of 2013 before this Court. This has resulted in Annexure XII judgment rendered by this Court on 28.01.2014 in the said WP(C) No.25993 of 2013. A reading of Annexure-XII judgment in WP(C) No.25993 of 2013 would make it clear that various Police Officials concerned including the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Circle Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, etc. are made parties thereto and the 2[nd] respondent herein has been arrayed as 6[th] respondent therein. 10. After hearing both sides, this Court has categorically held in Annexure-XII judgment dated 28.01.2014 in WP(C) No.25993 of 2013 in paragraph No.14 thereof that the petitioner may be justified in his submission that while the petition enquiry by R4 therein (Circle Inspector of Police) was going on, it was highly inappropriate for R5 therein (Sub Inspector of Police) to have registered the abovesaid impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Medical College Police Station and that if, as a matter of fact, in the petition enquiry by R4 therein (C.I) it is found that the complaint by R6 therein (R2 herein) is frivolous and false, then that will certainly have impact on the subsequent proceedings **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **18** against the petitioner. This Court has also categorically held in para No.14 on Anx.XII judgment that the attempt of R5 therein (Sub Inspector of Police) with the connivance of R8 therein (Assistant Commissioner of Police) is only to forestall the petition enquiry by R4 (C.I of Police), which was ordered at the instance of the Superintendent of Police of the Vanitha police cell and that the said actions of R5 therein (Sub Inspector of Police) and R8 therein (Assistant Commissioner of Police) cannot be supported. This Court held in para No.15 of Anx.XII judgment that though it may not be legally possible to quash the impugned crime, the petitioner is well justified in his submission that until and unless R4 therein (C.I of Police) completes the petition enquiry, which has commenced on the basis of complaint filed by R6 therein (R2 herein), the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police station shall not be continued. Hence this Court disposed of W.P(C) No.25993/2013 as per Anx.XII judgment dated 28-01-2014 with the direction that the impugned FIR in crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Police Station, shall be kept in abeyance until the petition enquiry commenced by R4 therein (C.I of Police) with regard to the complaint made none other than by R6 therein (R2 herein) is completed and further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **19** Thiruvananthapuram Medical College police station, in pursuance of the result of the enquiry made by R4 therein. 11. Thus this Court has categorically held in no uncertain terms as per Anx.XII judgment that the registration of the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station by the Sub Inspector of Police, when the petition enquiry then conducted by superior (C.I of police) was pending, is an attempt on the part of S.I of police with connivance of the Assistant Commissioner of Police to forestall the petition enquiry conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, which was ordered by none other than the Superintendent of Police of the Vanitha police cell and that too, on the basis of complaint as per Anx.IV herein given by none other than the 2[nd] respondent and that the said actions of S.I of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police cannot be supported. This Court has also held that the further proceedings in the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station shall be kept in abeyance until the conclusion and final outcome of the petition enquiry that was then being conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and that if, as a matter of fact, in the petition enquiry by the Circle Inspector of Police it is found that the complaint made by R2 herein is frivolous and false, then that will certainly have an impact on the subsequent **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** ## **20** proceedings pursuant to the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station. Thus this Court has ordered that the impugned crime No.1262/2013 Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station shall be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the petition enquiry by the Circle Inspector of Police with regard to the complaint made by R2 herein as per Anx.IV herein is completed and that further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station shall be only in pursuance of the result in the petition enquiry made by the Circle Inspector of Police, etc. 12. From the submissions of counsel for the 2[nd] respondent as well as from the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that before the rendering of Anx.XII judgment by this Court in W.P(C) No. 25993/2013 on 28-01-2014, the Circle Inspector of Police, who was then in charge of the petition enquiry, had already submitted Anx.XVI letter dated 02-10-2013 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, State Vanitha Police Cell. Para Nos.1 to 4 of Anx.XVI are only reiteration of the factual aspects relating to the submission of Anx.IV complaint and related aspects. Paras 5 & 6 on internal page 2 of Anx.XVI of letter dated 02-102013 (See page No.88 of the paper book of this Crl.MC) issued by the Circle Inspector of Police makes very interesting reading and the same **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **21** ## read as follows: “5. പരരാതവികരാരവിലയ ശേരവിയരായതരതവിൽ അനനന്വേഷണയ നടെതവിയവിട്ടുളതരാണക . 6. അനനന്വേഷണതവിൽ പരരാതവികരാരവിലയ 08/05/2013 - ആയ തലീയതവി സവകവി 06.30 മണവിനയരാലടെ ഗഗൗരലീശേപട്ടത്തുള മരാർവൽ മരാൻഷൻഡക ഫരാറവിൽ എ & ബവി ബവിൽഡവിങ്ങവിൽ തരാമസൈയ പരരാതവിയവിലലെ എതവിർകകവിയരായ ഷരാജവിദലീൻ പരരാതവികരാരവിലയ ടെവി ഫരാറവിലന്റെ ലസൈല്ലേരാർ ലസ്റ്റേപവിൽ വചക അശേക ളലീലെ വരാക് **ക** ു ൾ വവിളവിച്ചു പറെയുകയുയ കയറെവി പവിടെവിക്കുവരാൻ ശ്രമവിക് **ക** ു യുയ ലചെയ് **ത** രായവി നഫരാൺ മുഖരാനവിരയ വവിവരയ ലെഭവിക് **ക** ു യരാൽ , 25/07/2013- നവിർനദ്ദേശേരാനസൈരണയ ലമഡവികൽ നകരാനളജക നപരാലെലീസൈക നസ്റ്റേഷനവിൽ നവിന്നുയ ആയ തലീയതവി നപരാലെലീസൈക പരാർട്ടവി വനവിതരാ നപരാലെലീസൈവിലന്റെ സൈഹരായതരാൽ പരരാതവികരാരവി തരാമസൈവിക്കുന്ന നനൻനകരാടള വലീട്ടവിലലെതവി ടെവി യരാളുലടെ ലമരാഴവി വരാങ്ങവി നസ്റ്റേഷനവിൽ ഹരാജരരായവി ടെവി ലമരാഴവിയുലടെ അടെവിസ്ഥരാനതവിൽ ലമഡവികൽ നകരാനളജക നപരാലെലീസൈക നസ്റ്റേഷൻ സക്രയ 1262/2013 U/s 354(A), & 509 IPC പ്രകരാരയ നകസൈക രജവിസ്റ്റേർ ലചെയ അനനന്വേഷണയ നടെതവി വരുന്നതരായവി ലവളവിവരായവിട്ടുളതരാണക .” 13. According to the counsel for R2, Anx.XVI is a report given by the Circle Inspector of Police about the culmination of the petition enquiry process and that Anx.XVI letter dated 02-10-2013 was never brought to the notice of this Court at the time of rendering of Anx.XII judgment dated 28-01-2014 in W.P(C) No.25993/2013 and that if Anx.XVI letter dated 0210-2013 issued by the Circle Inspector of Police was brought to the notice of this Court, then none of the abovesaid direction would have been issued by this Court in the Anx.XII judgment. The abovesaid contention of the 2[nd] respondent would deserve rejection at the hands of this Court for reason more than one. First and foremost it is very obvious that Anx.XII judgment has become final and conclusive. None of the parties thereto including the respondents thereto has made any challenge thereto either by filing of review or appeal. The period of limitation for mounting any such challenge has expired long ago. Hence it is only to be held that the **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **22** orders and directions issued by this Court in Anx.XII judgment dated 2801-2014 in W.P(C) No.25993/2013 have become final and conclusive. Therefore, the 2[nd] respondent or none of the official respondents can even make a remote contention that the directions and orders in Anx.XII judgment have lost its efficacy or it is no longer relevant and germane for deciding the issues at hand. But there is yet another very important and substantial aspect of the matter. A reading of Anx.XVI letter dated 02-10-2013 issued by the Circle Inspector of Police, more particularly paras 5 & 6 thereof would make it clear like the day light that the Circle Inspector of Police does not have any case that he has completed and culminated the process of petition enquiry in the manner known to law and that he has given a considered report regarding the contents of the various statements of the witnesses recorded by him and the materials collected by him and the findings made by him pursuant to the said petition enquiry and the reasons for arriving at the conclusion therein, etc. On the other hand, what is merely mechanically stated in Anx.XVI letter is that the said officer conducted the petition enquiry, as can be seen from para 5 thereof. Para 6 would make it clear like the day light that since the Sub Inspector of Police (who is the subordinate of the petition enquiry officer of the Circle Inspector of Police) has already registered the impugned Anx.X FIR in crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **23** Medical College Police Station on 25-07-2013 and the inevitable inference therefrom is that since the Sub Inspector of Police has already registered Anx.X FIR in crime No.1262/2013 on 25-07-2013, that is the end of the matter and therefore, that amounts to closure of the petition enquiry that was to be conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police as ordered by the Superintendent of police of the State Vanitha Police Cell. The respondents do not have any case that at any point of time either before or after the issuance of Anx.XVI letter dated 02-10-2013 or at any time before or after the rendering of the Anx.XII judgment dated 28-01-2014, the said petition enquiry officer, viz, the Circle Inspector of Police, has completed the process of petition enquiry and has rendered a report to the Superintendent of police, who ordered the petition enquiry, as can be seen from Anx.V, detailing out the brief summary of the contents of the various statements recorded by him from various witnesses concerned and the findings arrived as well as materials collected by him if any and findings made by him in the abovesaid petition enquiry and the reasons for arriving at such conclusions. Both the respondents do not have any such case that the Circle Inspector of Police has duly culminated and finalised the process of petition enquiry by submitting such a petition enquiry report to the Superintendent of police. In other words, Anx.XVI is a clear stand of the said police officer **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **24** that because of the registration of the crime by subordinate officer on 25-07-2013, it has become _fait accompli_ and therefore, it amounts to the virtual ending of the petition enquiry process, though it has been ordered by the Superintendent of Police. In other words, the petition enquiry has not been completed in the manner known to law even till date. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the abovesaid crucial directions and orders made by this Court as per Anx.XII judgment dated 28-01-2014 in W.P(C) No.25993/2013 have been thrown to the winds by the official respondents inasmuch as the petition enquiry has not been culminated and finalised in the manner known to law. This aspect of the matter is very crucial inasmuch as the findings made by this Court in Anx.XII judgment have become final and conclusive and the findings are to the effect that the petition enquiry should necessarily be completed by the Circle Inspector of Police and that the action of the Circle Inspector Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police in attempting to stall the petition enquiry process by the unilateral registration of the crime cannot be supported and that if, as a matter of fact, it is found in the petition enquiry that the allegations raised by R2 herein are false and frivolous, then that would have a direct and inevitable consequences on the **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **25** further steps to be taken in the registered crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Police Station. In other words, the investigation pursuant to Anx.X FIR, after the rendering of Anx.XII judgment dated 28-01-2014 is blatantly against the spirit and substance of the various directions and findings made by this Court in the said judgment. It appears that without conducting petition enquiry and culminating in the manner known to law, the police officials concerned have completed the investigation pursuant to Anx.X FIR and have submitted Anx.XIII Final report/charge sheet in the said crime on 28-11-2014. It appears from the stand of the respondents that the Investigating Officer has taken the stand as if Anx.XVI letter dated 02-10-2013 of the petition enquiry officer, is actually the culmination of the petition enquiry process, as conceived in Anx.XII judgment, etc. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the investigation conducted and the submission of the final report as per Anx.XIII dated 28-11-2014 is in flagrant and blatant violation of the concluded findings and directions issued by this Court in Anx.XII judgment. It is accordingly ordered and declared. 15. That apart, it can be seen that there was a series of litigative proceedings as between the petitioner on the one hand and the 2[nd] respondent & her husband on the other hand, which led to institution **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **26** of civil suits, reference of the matter in the Lok Adalat and its award, the voluntary entering into a compromise deed by the 2[nd] respondent and her husband, which resulted in Lok Adalat awards, the blatant violation of the Lok Adalat award by the 2[nd] respondent and her husband and the subsequent factual aspects relating to the institution of the execution proceedings before the civil court for enforcement of the Lok Adalat award. It is at that point of time the abovesaid alleged incidents have happened. There are allegations and counter allegations. Annexure-I is the complaint given by none other than the petitioner on 08-05-2013 itself about his allegation that as a matter of fact on 08-052013 in the afternoon, the 2[nd] respondent's husband had assaulted him in the flat premises. The said petition as per Anx.I dated 08-05-2013 has been acknowledged by the police station authorities, as can be seen from Anx.II receipt dated 08-05-2013. 16. The 2[nd] respondent and her husband have initially got a specific case that the first incident have happened on 08-05-2013 at 11.30 a.m and the second incident has happened on 08-05-2013 at 6.30 p.m. Further a mere perusal of Anx.IV complaint, more particularly, para No.3 thereof, would make it clear that, according to the 2[nd] respondent her husband, had immediately given a petition/ complaint to the police station authorities concerned about the alleged incidents, **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **27** which happened on 08-05-2013 at 11.30 a.m. The said so-called complaint/petition has not been produced or made available by the 2[nd] respondent or by the 1[st] respondent in any of these proceedings in the course of petition enquiry or in the course of the crime investigation or before this Court, either in Anx.XII writ proceedings or in the present proceedings. In other words, there is strong force in the submission of Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents, more particularly, 2[nd] respondent have completely suppressed the said so-called first complaint/petition stated to have bee given by her husband to the police station authorities immediately after the incident on 08-05-2013 at 11.30 a.m. That apart, the specific case of the 2[nd] respondent in Anx.IV petition enquiry complaint dated 10-05-2013 as can be seen from para No.3 & 4 thereof is that, two separate incidents have happened one at 11.30 a.m on 0805-2013 and another at between 6.00 and 6.30 p.m on the same day viz, 08-05-2013. The alleged first incident, which is said to have happened on 08-05-2013 at 11.30 a.m, is completely given a go-by by none other than the 2[nd] respondent, both in her petition enquiry statement, as can be seen from Anx.IX or in the First Information Statement given as per Anx.X. Both in Anx.IX petition enquiry statement as well as in Anx.X First Information Statement, the **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **28** case of the 2[nd] respondent is that only one incident has happened and that too, on 08-05-2013 between 6.00 and 6.30 p.m. This aspect of the matter would assume more importance because the petitioner has got a specific case that he was assaulted by the 2[nd] respondent's husband on 08-05-2013 in the afternoon. 17. It may also be relevant to note that one Sri.Sukumara Pillai has stated that he had seen the petitioner coming out with a bleeding nose on 8.5.2013, etc. That apart, the so-called first complaint given by the 2[nd] respondent's husband on 08-05-2013 immediately after 11.30 a.m incident has been completely suppressed and it is not available at all. Both the respondents now do not have any case about the submission of any such first complaint by the 2[nd] respondent's husband on 08-05-2013. Whereas, it appears from the records that now the case of the respondents is that, the first said complaint given by the 2[nd] respondent is as per Anx.IV petition dated 10-05-2013. The fact that Anx.IV petition has been given only on 10-05-2013 is also evident from Anx.V forwardal letter. Whereas, the case of the petitioner that he had submitted Anx.I complaint dated 08-05-2013 immediately after he was assaulted by the 2[nd] respondent's husband is fortified and established by Anx.II receipt dated 10-05-2013 issued by the police station authorities concerned. Therefore, it may be that the 2[nd] respondent **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **29** would have found it very difficult to establish her case regarding the first incident is said to have happened on 08-05-2013 at 11.30 a.m as alleged in para No.3 of Anx.IV that she has completely given up that case both in Anx.IX petition enquiry statement and Anx.X F.I Statement. Hence it can be seen that even going by the case of the respondents, the first incident may not have happened at all, as it has been given a complete go-by. The learned Magistrate in Anx.XVIII order has found that the allegations of the 2[nd] respondent that the petitioner has committed offence as per Sec.354A of the IPC dealing with sexual harassment etc, and that he had tried to caught hold of her on 08-05-2013 at 6.30 p.m, cannot be proceeded further in the impugned criminal proceedings. Annexure-XVIII order passed by the learned Magistrate in this case has not been challenged by both the respondents in the manner known to law. Therefore, in other words, the trial court has taken the view that the allegations of the 2[nd] respondent that the petitioner has committed the offence as per Sec.354A of the IPC (dealing with sexual harassment etc), by catching hold of her etc. are not believable or credible versions. So the only remaining offence now alleged against the petitioner is one as per Sec.509 of the IPC, which deals with using word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman and the said provision **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **30** reads as follows: “ **Sec.509:-Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman:-** _Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.”_ Since the prosecution themselves have made a dramatic variance of their story, as can be seen from the story put up in Anx.IV on the one hand vis-a-vis the one at Anx.IX- petition enquiry statement, Anx.XF.I Statement & Anx.XIII – Final report, it can be seen that allegation made by the 2[nd] respondent about the first incident lacks complete believability and credibility. The allegations made by the 2[nd] respondent regarding the commission of the alleged offence as per Sec.354A of the IPC have also been found to be bereft of any legal credence by none other than the trial court, which order has not been challenged by both the respondents. There was indeed a long standing monitory dispute between the parties as can be seen from the narration of facts given hereinabove. The allegations and counter allegations were there, as can be seen from the version of the petitioner given as per Anx.I on the one hand and the version of the 2[nd] respondent as the one as per Anx.IV, Anx.IX, Anx.X, etc. 18. Judging of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to take the view that the impugned **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **31** criminal proceedings have been set in motion at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent due to extraneous and ulterior considerations. At any rate, this Court has no hesitation to hold that taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged incidents may not have happened in the manner as suggested by the prosecution and could have happened in some other manner. It is all the more particularly so, in view of the aspects borne out from Anx.I & Anx.II made at the instance of the petitioner, as fortified by Anx.VII statement given by one of the witnesses on the one hand vis-a-vis the allegations of the 2[nd] respondent as made out in Anx.IV, Anx.IX, Anx.X etc. 19. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case _**Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & another**_ reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 that where a complaint is found to be vexatious or frivolous or oppressive, the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C could befittingly exercised to quash such impugned criminal proceedings. In the case _**State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew**_ reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40, the Apex Court has held that the impugned criminal proceedings can be quashed where the complaint involves malafides. In the case _**Lambodaran Nair v. State of Kerala**_ reported in 2003 (1) KLT SN 115 Case No.83 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that the **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **32** power under Sec.482 Cr.PC can be exercised where criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides or to wreck personal vengeance. In the case _**Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand**_ reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72, the Supreme Court has categorically held that if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuance of a prosecution will lead to abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, the power under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised and the proceedings must be quashed. 20. In view of the abovesaid aspects, since the abovesaid incidents could have happened not in the manner suggested by the prosecution, but could have probably happened in some other manner and in view of the blatant and flagrant violation of the various directions and orders passed by this Court in Anx.XII judgment in the culmination of the investigation and submission of the final report etc, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings will be nothing but grave abuse of the process of court. 21. Taking note of the abovesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the inherent extraordinary powers of this Court saved and preserved as per Sec.482 of Cr.PC could be invoked in this case for the interdiction of the impugned criminal proceedings. In that **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **33** view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Anx.XIII Final report/Charge Sheet filed in Anx.X Crime No.1262/2013 of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Police Station, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No.3242/2014 as against the petitioner/accused for the offence alleged against him and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner/accused for the offence alleged against him therein will stand quashed and set aside. 22. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, who is dealing with C.C No.3242/2014 for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** SCS/KAS **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **34** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.5.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEX. 1 COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE C.I.OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 111 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.5.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HOME MINISTER. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.5.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE VANITHA CELL. ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO P(H)/684/13/SPWC DATED 17.5.2013 FORWARDED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE WOMEN CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION FROM THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION FROM SRI.SUKUMARA PILLAI, ANOTHER RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.A7 OF MARVEL MANSION.** **ANNEXURE VIII TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION FROM SRI.APPUKKUTTAN, NIGHT SECURITY OF MARVEL MANSION.** **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **35** **ANNEXURE IX TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE , MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOBA AJITH.** **ANNEXURE X TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO 1262/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE XI TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 2707/GL/2013/CIMC DATED 7.9.2013 OF THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE XII TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 25993/2013.** **ANNEXURE XIII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1262/2013 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE XIV TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.7.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT** **ANNEXURE XV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 62/RTI/15/CIMC OF THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN REPLY TO ANNEXURE XIV APPLICATION** **ANNEXURE XVI TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO 384/PETN/2013/CIMC DATED 2.10.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE VANITHA CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE OF THIS REQUEST DATED 13.7.2015, UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE VANITHA CELL.** **Crl.MC.No.5474 OF 2019(D)** **36** **ANNEXURE XVII TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 239 CR.PC** **ANNEXURE XVIII TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 IN CRL. M P NO 714/2017 IN CC NO 3242/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**