M.KUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/29TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1671 of 2014** **---------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ---------------------** **M.KUMARAN, MANIMANDIRAM, MURAVANTHURUTHU, VADAKKEKKARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL (ALUVA), ALUVA.** **3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKKEKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1671 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2014.** **ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2014.** **ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE.** **ANNEXURE IV- TRUE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS PAPER DAILY MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 28.02.2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **--------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 19[th] day of June, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner against the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in not registering the crime on the basis of a complaint filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is a member of Vinjanaprakasa Sabha at Vadakkekara which owns a temple by name Vadakkekara Chakkumarassery Sree Kumaraganesa Mangalam. The said temple is having its office near to the temple which was constructed at the expense of the petitioner and the petitioner had donated the said office to the temple. He was very much interested in the day to day affairs and functioning of the temple and its office. On 24.2.2014 at about 5 a.m the petitioner and the office bearers noted that a theft has been committed in the office of the temple and the 'Falakam' made in brass worth Rs.50,000/- and an office board worth Rs.40,000/- were found missing. These Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 2 articles were donated by the petitioner to the temple at the time of donating the office building constructed by him. Though the theft was intimated to the third respondent on the same day and a complaint was given to the temple office bearers also regrading the same, no action has been taken by him. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. to direct the respondents to register FIR in the complaint filed by the petitioner in the matter and to investigate into the matter to find the accused persons. ii. To direct the 2[nd] respondent to constitute a special team to investigate in respect of the complaint dated 27.2.2014 filed by the petitioner regarding the theft committed in the office of Vadakkekara Chakkumarassery Sree Kumaraganesa Mangalam and to complete the investigation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. Pass such other orders which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the basis of the allegations in the petition, a report has been called for from the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkera 3 Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 ## police station and he filed a report which reads as follows: “A petition has been received from Sri. Anilkumar, Secretary, Vadakkekara Vijnanaprakasaka Sangam, Muravanthuruth on 26.2.14. The petition states that the name board of Vadakkecheruvaram office, tube light and other items are thrown in a nearby rivulet by some miscreants. The petition is registered as No.207/PTN/14/B2 and endorsed to CPO Shiju for enquiry. Enquiry of CPO Shiju revealed that the new office bearers had taken charge of Cadakkecheruvaram sect office Vijnanaprakasam and they were discontended on the name plate and board placed before that office citing the name of Vijayan an inhabitant of Kollam district who had contributed a lot in the construction work of the said office. It was also revealed that on 24.2.14 the name board, name plate and tube light were displaced by some miscreants probably belonging to the supporters of the new office bearers from the outer walls of Vadakkechuruvaram office and abandoned them in a near by rivulet stream. The items were not been lost or damaged. Those items retrieved from the rivulet stream were endorsed back with the authorities of Vinjana Prakasaka Sangam. It was the office bearers and local people themselves informed the police that those items were placed in the nearby stream. Sangam 4 Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 Secretary Anilkumar and other office bearers requested intense police patrolling and surveillance at those areas in night time and they also stated that further proceedings need not be taken in this regard. Police assessed that such like a stand taken by them is only to avert factional skirmishes with the Vadakkecheruvaram office bearers. On 27.2.14 a petition was submitted by Mr. Kumaran stating that the name board and name plate which were placed by him as an attribute to the temple were being theft by some one. The petition was registered as petition No.208/PTN/14/B2 and endorsed to SCPO Sunilkumar for enquiry. On his enquiry it was revealed that new office bearers of Vadakkecheruvaram had some resentment with Kumaran as he hadn't handed over the income expenditure statements of the DTP Activities and DATA Entry work under went in the same office. First petition (207/PTN/14/B2) submitted by the real owner, administrator and possessor of Vadakkecheruvaram office and temple premises, were disposed off in an apt manner. The second petition was submitted only by a person (Mr. Kumaran) who had aided in making some third person (Vijayan Kollam District) contribute construction work in Chakkmarassery temple premises. Hence no further action was taken in the second petition, as the matter 5 Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 ## stance disposed off earlily. For ensuring the L& O in the temple premises and nearby area police intensified patrolling and suomoto action and on 26.2.14, three persons were arrested from the premises of Vadakkecheruvaram office for causing disturbances to public tranquility and crime 249/2014, u/s 118(a) of KP Act has been registered at Vadakkekara police station. Now a days police is keenly observing the developments and minor issues in and nearby areas of Chakkumarassery temple and so far no L & O issues or disturbances has been reported. The reason for not registering a crime case in the petition No.208/PTN/2014/B2 is that the same matter has been disposed off aptly and effectively in a previous time and the defacto complainant of that petition was contented and convinced with its disposal. The petitioner Mr. Kumaram Crl.M.C.No.1671/14 in only a third person and he cannot be assessed as the authority complainant for the damages occurred in the Vadakkecheruvaram office. The basic reason for his exaggerated petition is that he was not convinced and consulted in each and every aspect of Vadakkecheruvaram office routine activities. Whereas the original owner cum possessor and administrator is the real complainant on the issue, and they stance contendant in the disposal of the petition 6 Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 matter, a third person namely Mr. Kumaran is in not a position to allege theft of the articles. Such like petitions if solely depended for registering major property cases, there will be a huge loss of man working hours for the police and such like petitioners will find it a way for attaining the self centered goals against some one by simply raising technical aspects falsely of a theft case. Hence, the police hereby pray the Honourable Court to discourage such like petitions”. 4. It is true that as per the decision reported in **Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & others** (2013 (4) KHC 552 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically declared that whenever a complaint is filed in respect of a non-cognizable offence, the police is duty bound to register the crime and investigate the same. But in that decision also it is not mentioned regarding the remedy of the parties, if the case was not registered. It is seen from the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police that such complaints were being received by persons claiming to be the office bearers and also persons interested in the temple and after enquiry with the office bearers those petitions have been closed as no crime has been committed. It is seen from the report that board of the office 7 Crl.M.C.No.1671 of 2014 was recovered from nearby culvert and according to them, the theft would have been done by some miscreants who are enmical with the office bearers of the temple. According to the petitioner, there is nothing mentioned about the 'Falakam' which was alleged to have been stolen from there. According to the report, the administrator of the temple has no grievance and so no crime was registered. 5. In view of the above report, the remedy of the petitioner, if he is not satisfied with the same is to resort to the remedy provided under Sections 190 and 200 of the Code by filing a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate court and redress his grievance. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge