High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-10-31Dismissed

Mani Gound @ Krishnaswamy Gounder v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjampara Police Station

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 3400 of 2008

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2008-10-31
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is dismissed subject to the observations stated above.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mani Gound @ Krishnaswamy Gounder S/o Nachimuthu Gounder

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. G. Hariharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri. Gikku Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mani Gound @ Krishnaswamy Gounder, the petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the belatedly added allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in crime No. 354/2008 at Kozhinjampara Police Station. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 341, 323 and 354 IPC and the investigation also included a Section 3(1)(xi) POA Act allegation. The FIR originally did not contain the 3(1)(xi) charge, but it was subsequently added; the victim is a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste while the petitioner does not belong to any SC/ST. The petitioner argues that the belated inclusion prejudices him and that bail, when sought, could be jeopardized because the offence is triable exclusively by a Sessions Court. He seeks directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to ensure that, on surrender before the Magistrate, his bail application is considered on merits and favorably, in light of established precedents. The State’s exact submissions are not exhaustively quoted in the order, but the court notes that there is a foundation for the 3(1)(xi) allegation in the FI statement. The court cites several precedents to emphasize merit-based bail at surrender and to urge consistent application of bail norms, while also observing that Alice George’s general directions are not required in every case. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed with observations for future bail considerations and expeditious handling of surrender.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 482 Cr.P.CSection 437 Cr.P.CSection 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the belated inclusion of the Section 3(1)(xi) allegation in the FIR is prejudicial and that it should not prejudice the bail process. He argues that for an offence triable exclusively by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate must consider the bail application on merits at the time of surrender and not abdicate this jurisdiction. He seeks Section 482 Cr.P.C directions to ensure such consideration, citing established precedents (Ali v. State of Kerala, Shanu v. State of Kerala, Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala, P.P. Khadr v. State of Kerala) and the Alice George line of directions which guide bail considerations. He contends that quashing the belated 3(1)(xi) allegation would avert potential injustice while preserving the integrity of the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide explicit, separate arguments from the respondents; the State’s stance is inferred from the court’s observations that the 3(1)(xi) allegation has a foundation in the FI statement and that the decision to quash was not warranted. The State appears to rely on the statutory framework under the POA Act and the nature of the offences, which may permit ongoing investigation notwithstanding the belated addition. The record focuses on bail merits at surrender and the need to respect procedural norms rather than detailing counter-arguments.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police	2003(1) KLT 339	Positive	Cited as a source of general bail directions; the court notes that sufficient general directions exist from Alice George and respects its principle, without mandating new directions in every case.
Ali v. State of Kerala	2000(2) KLT 280	Positive	Cited as precedent reinforcing merit-based bail considerations on surrender in similar contexts.
Shanu v. State of Kerala	2000(3) KLT 452	Positive	Cited to support the approach toward bail on surrender and the application of established norms.
Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala	2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 42	Positive	Referenced for guidance on merit-based bail at surrender in the present context.
P.P. Khadr v. State of Kerala	2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 250	Positive	Used to reinforce the principle of considering bail on surrender under existing precedents.

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 Mani Gound @ Krishnaswamy Gounder v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjampara Police Station 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 R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3400 of 2008() ------------------------(AGAINST CRIME NO.354/2008 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ------------- MANI GOUND @ KRISHNASWAMY GOUNDER S/O.NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT METHAKKALAM MANGAPPALLAM, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, KOZHINJAMPARA. PALAKKAD DISTIRCT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT, J.** ----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 2008 ## **O R D E R** Petitioner faces allegations in a crime alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 354 IPC. In the course of investigation allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has also been included. 2. Petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the report including the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be quashed. 3. What is the reason ? The counsel submits that the FIR initially did not contain the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation under Section 354 IPC had been included specifically. The victim is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner does not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances I am not persuaded to agree that the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:2:- Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though included subsequently, such belated inclusion can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find absolutely no reason to quash the said allegation included subsequently as the foundation for the allegation is already there in the FI statement recorded by the police. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inclusion of that allegation (all other offences are allegedly bailable) against the petitioner shall cause serious prejudice and hardship to him. Petitioner cannot now seek anticipatory bail in the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. If he surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, the petitioner apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The offence being one triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, the Magistrate may abdicate his jurisdiction and may not consider the same on merits. In these circumstances appropriate directions Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:3:- may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, submits the counsel. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistrate to comply with the directions in **Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]** and consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate favourably. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 6. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in **Alice George** (Supra). It is not necessary for this court in every subsequent case to issue directions to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in **Alice George** (Supra). Every court is bound to do the same. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If the directions are not complied with the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner. 7. This court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that an offence is triable exclusively by the court of Session cannot Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:4:- justify abdication of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C. I do not want to issue any further directions or make any observation which may fetter the discretion of the learned magistrate. But it is essential that the learned Magistrate must consider such application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on his surrender before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously in the light of the decisions in _**Ali v. State of Kerala**_ [2000(2) KLT 280], _**Shanu V. State of Kerala**_ [2000(3) KLT 452] _**Krishnakumar V. State of Kerala**_ [2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 42] and _**P.P. Khadr V. State of Kerala**_ [2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 250] - on the date of surrender itself. 8. In the result, this petition is dismissed subject to the above specific observations. 9. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. ## **R. BASANT, JUDGE** ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:7:-