Moni George and Rajeev @ Manoj v State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Aryanad Police Station, Vineeshkumar and Vishnu @ Balu

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5114 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 892/2023 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 MONI GEORGE AGED 56 YEARS S/O GEORGE, PLAMOOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, THUMBUKONAM, CHERIYA ARYANAD, ARYANAD.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, -` - `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN 695542` - `2 RAJEEV @ MANOJ AGED 35 YEARS S/O GILBERT, MARUTHUMMOODU VEEDU, THUMBUKONAM, CHERIYA ARYANAD, ARYANAD.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, -` - `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN 695542` ``` BYADVA.S.SHAMMYRAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT.P.O., -` - `ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031` - `2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ARYANAD POLICE STATION, ARYANAD.P.O., -` - `NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN 695542` ``` 3VINEESHKUMAR AGED35YEARS S/OVIJAYAN,VINEESHBHAVAN, THUMBUKONAMCOLONY,CHERIYAARYANAD, ARYANAD.P.O.,NEDUMANGAD, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,PIN695542 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 4VISHNU@BALU S/OBAHULEYAN,MEKKUMKARAPUTHENVEEDU, CHERIYAARYANAD,ARYANAD.P.O., - NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,PIN 695542 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON30.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioner herein is accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 856/2022 of the Aryanad Police station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, the final report has been laid, and the case is pending as S.C. No. 892/2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad. 2. The prosecution allegation is that owing to previous enmity in connection with property disputes, on 23.10.2022 at about 8. pm, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the informant and attacked him with an iron pipe causing injuries. When CW2 attempted to intervene, he was also attacked, and injuries were inflicted. It is further alleged that when the prosecution witnesses, who were cited as CWs 3 to 5, intervened, they were also assaulted. 3. Sri. Shammy Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the allegations in the Final report cannot be accepted as correct. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant is an influential person, and he has managed to concoct a false case against the accused with the aid of the police. The learned counsel would further contend that at the instance of the 1st accused herein, Annexure-A5 crime has been registered on 08.05.2022. Later, the ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 1st accused was again assaulted, and based on the information furnished by him, Annexure-A12 was registered. The learned counsel submits that the assertions in the final report that the petitioners herein were armed with weapons and they had attacked the de facto complainant is a false version that has not been substantiated by the investigation carried out by the police. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions. Reliance is placed on the witness statement and other prosecution records, and it is argued that the materials collected clearly point to the involvement of the petitioners. It is submitted that the medical records also disclose that injuries were sustained by the victims. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available. 6. It is well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offense. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as **R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), **State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in **Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others** [2021 SCC Online SC 315]. 7. Upon careful examination of the available materials and evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offense has been established against the petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning purported contradictions in the witnesses' statements, absence of serious injuries, the timeliness and falsity of the complaint, and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court will not be justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced before court. It would be prudent for this court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere, this petition will stand dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5114/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |`Annexure `|`A1`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C.`| |---|---|---| |||`NO.892/2023 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,`| |||`NEDUMANGAD WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO.856/2022 OF`| |||`ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT`| |||`DATED 26.11.2022`| |`Annexure `|`A2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME`| |||`NO.856/2022 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION,`| |||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 25.10.2022`| |`Annexure `|`A3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED`| |||`25.3.2022 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN`| |||`I.A. NO.1/2022 IN O.S. NO.214/2022`| |`Annexure `|`A4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE`| |||`COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO.214/2022 OF MUNSIFF COURT,`| |||`NEDUMANGAD (UNDATED)`| |`Annexure `|`A5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME`| |||`NO.299/2022 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION,`| |||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT`| |`Annexure `|`A6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT HISTORY OF THE 1ST`| |||`PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY,`| |||`MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM BEARING I.P.`| |||`NO.184665/2016 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 6.3.2016 TO`| |||`11.3.2016`| |`Annexure `|`A7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.8.2022 SUBMITTED`| |||`BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE`| |||`(RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH THE`| |||`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF PETITION NO.58343/2022/T`| |||`DATED 19.8.2022 FROM THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT POLICE`| |||`OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL`| |`Annexure `|`A8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CASUALTY O.P. TICKET ISSUED TO THE`| |||`1ST PETITIONER BY THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE,`| |||`ARYANAD DATED 23.10.2022`| ``` CRL.MCNO.5114OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` AnnexureA9TRUECOPYOFTHECASUALTYO.P.TICKETISSUEDTOTHE 1STPETITIONERBYTHEMEDICALCOLLEGEHOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,DATED23.10.2022 ``` - `Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 28.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, NEDUMANGAD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER` - `Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT` ``` AnnexureA12TRUECOPYOFTHEF.I.R.INCRIMENO.859/2022OF ARYANADPOLICESTATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT DATED26.10.2022 ``` ``` AnnexureA13PHOTOGRAPHSHOWINGTHEDATEANDTIMEOFTHEPHOTOAS 23.10.2022,9.11P.M. ```