## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942**
## **Crl.MC.No.2148 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 15/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)**
**CRIME NO.1518/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:**
- **1 MUNNU ANTONY AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MARYDASAN, PULAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOVENTHAPPADY, MALAYINKEEZHU, NADUKANI ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
- **2 SHIBU VARGHESE AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KUDILIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA, NEAR JUNCTION, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
- **3 JOMET K.J. AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.J.JOSEPH, KURISUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, SNEHA LANE, NEAR FERRY, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
- **4 BINOD K.R. AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.G.RAGHAVAN, GOVINDA BHAVAN, CHIRAKKADAVAM, NEAR K.P.A.C., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.U.M.HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
2
- **2 SMITHA MOL**
**AGED 28, W/O.JOSEPH FERDINAND RIBELLO, JEWEL SPRING FIELD, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, SRM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA.**
**SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
3
# **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.**
## **=========================== Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018**
**===========================** Dated this the 03[rd] day of December, 2020
## **ORDER**
The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows :
_"............ to quash Annexure A2 final report and all proceedings in CC 15/18 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IX, Ernakulam, to secure the ends of justice."_
2. Heard Sri.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. Though notice has been issued to the contesting respondent No.2 (lady de facto complainant), as can be seen from the endorsement made available from the Registry, as early as on 25.04.2019, there is no appearance for that party.
3. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 among the four accused in the instant impugned Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.1518/2017 of Ernakulam Palarivattom Police Station, for offences punishable under Secs.341, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the First Information Statement given
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
4
by the 2[nd] respondent (lady de facto complainant) on 15.09.2017 at about 6.25 p.m., in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 12.09.2017 between 1 p.m & 1.15 p.m. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet on 14.02.2018 in the said Crime No.1518/2017 of Ernakulam Palarivattom Police Station, wherein the petitioners herein had been arrayed as the four accused therein, for the abovesaid offences punishable under Secs.341, 506(i) & 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and now the case is pending as calendar case, C.C.No.15/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam.
4. The brief of the prosecution case is that when the 2[nd] respondent-de facto complainant was gone to Kotak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., along with her husband and the minor child, where the accused persons are working, on 12.09.2017 at about 1p.m., the accused persons had wrongfully confined the 2[nd] respondent, her husband and her child in their cabin and made derogative remarks against her and by saying that no financial institution will give loan to such people, etc. and further that they threatened that she can leave the cabin only after she clears her loan arrears taken from the said financial institution, etc.
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
5
5. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the 2[nd] respondent had entered into a loan transaction with the financial institution, where the petitioners were working; in respect of a car loan and that there are arrears. The case of the petitioners is that they have been repeatedly telling the 2[nd] respondent to clear the loan arrears, without any further delay, as otherwise, proceedings will have to be set in motion in accordance with law. It is only a counterblast thereto and to compel the petitioners to compromise in the financial transaction, that the 2[nd] respondent had raised the instant false allegations, etc. The petitioners are working in a financial institution, which is reputed and ordinarily in the course of things, the abovesaid allegations lack credibility and believability. The petitioners have a definite case that the abovesaid allegations have been made by the 2[nd] respondent falsely and for extraneous considerations, in order to force the petitioners to compromise on the matters relating to the loan transaction in which the 2[nd] respondent has gone into arrears, etc. Further crucially it is seen that the alleged incident is said to have happened on 12.09.2017 in between 1 p.m. & 1.15 p.m., whereas for the first time, the 2[nd] respondent has approached the police station by lodging a FIS only as late as on 15.09.2017 at about 4 p.m. If actually the incident had taken place
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
6
ordinarily, the party would have immediately complained to the police. The incident has happened in a city and going by the social and economic status of the 2[nd] respondent, there is no explanation as to why she could not immediately approach the police and lodge the FIS. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the incident has happened while she was gone to the financial institution along with the child and her husband, if the 2[nd] respondent had any problems to immediately approach the police station, at least her husband could have given the complaint to the police authorities concerned. The delay of about three days in lodging of the crime appears to be quite crucial and significant in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, taking note of the very nature of the allegations.
6. In the decisions as in the cases in _**State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Madhusoodanan Rao**_ [(2008) 15 SCC 582], the Apex Court has held that the delay in lodging of FIR will more often than not, result in embellishments and exaggerations, which is a creation of afterthought and that the delayed report, not only gets bereft of the advantages of spontaneity, but the danger of introduction of coloured versions and exaggerated account of incidents or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation also creeps in, which cast a very
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
7
serious doubt on the very veracity of the prosecution story. Hence, it has been held that it is highly essential that the delay in lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.
7. Since there is serious credibility issues in the very allegations raised by the prosecutrix (2[nd] respondent) and also in view of the long and unexplained delay in lodging of the crime, this Court is of the considered view that the incidents in relation to the impugned criminal proceedings would have occurred not in the manner as suggested by the prosecution, but in some other manner and for extraneous considerations. The petitioners are working in a reputed financial institution. The continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of the court and hence, the matter would require interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the inherent extraordinary powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
8. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.1518/2017 of Ernakulam Palarivattom Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of calendar case, C.C.No.15/2018 on
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
8
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam as against the petitioners/accused and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioners/accused, will stand quashed and set aside.
9. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam, who is dealing with C.C.No.15/2018, for necessary information.
With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.
**Sd/-**
**ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE**
vgd
Crl.M.C No.2148 of 2018
9
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.1518/2017 DATED 15.09.2017 OF THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.**
**ANNEXURE A2**
**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.**
