Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala

Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 - 1 - ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025/17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO.898 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1278/2024 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN C.M.P.NO.9/2025 IN SC NO.1307 OF 2024 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-II, MANJERI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, CHEROTTA KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, PAYYANAD, AMBALAPPADI, MALAPPURAM (DIST.), PIN - 676122 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ANIL K.MUHAMED KRISHNAKUMAR G. AJIN SALAM MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY ADV. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 2 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C. No.1307/2024 pending before the Fast Track Special Court-II, Manjeri. He is aggrieved by Annexure-3 Order, which refused an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C to call for the General Diary of the case and the weekly report of the Inspector of Police. The trial court found that the General Diary will contain confidential information pertaining to other cases. Besides, it was also found that if the General Diary is directed to be produced in order to tally the time at which the Mahazars etc. are prepared, the same will have to be done in every case. It is also found that the tour programme of the C.P.Os and patrolling have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Stating so, the petition was dismissed. Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 - 3 - ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2.** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. **3.** Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the judgments of this Court in _**Shiju P.T v. State of Kerala**_ [2016 (4) KLT 367]; an unreported judgment of another learned Single Judge in Crl.M.C.No.3880/2024; and also, the judgment of this Court in _**Hariharan P.K. v. State of Kerala and Another**_ [2010 KHC 648], to contend that a Police Diary is different from the General Diary. The General Diary is maintained in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act and the distinction has been noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P**_ [1995 (4) SCC 430]. These judgments would go to show that a General Diary can be summoned at the instance of the accused, in contradistinction with a Police Diary, which can only be perused by the Court, Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 4 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** not for the purpose of evidence, but for the purpose of aiding or assisting the trial. According to the learned counsel, the impugned Order warrants interference. **4.** To a specific query put by this Court as to whether this right is liable to be enforced only at the stage of 233 Cr.P.C, the answer given by the counsel for the petitioner is that the witnesses may have to be recalled, if this right is to be exercised at that stage. On merits, it is pointed out that, the F.I.R was registered on 25.04.2024, before which date, another complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant, wherein allegations of sexual assault is not there. If the General Diary is called for, the existence of that written complaint can be brought into light. Similarly, weekly report is sought for, for the reason that it contains the details of the Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 5 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** places where the Investigating Officer had travelled, including his vehicle number. According to the learned counsel, the Mahazars etc. prepared in the instant case, were not done at the time at which it is stated in the Mahazar, which fact also can be brought out by producing the weekly report. On the question of privacy with respect to the details of other cases, if any, it is the suggestion of the learned counsel that the General Diary and the weekly report can be produced before the learned Sessions Judge; and if it contains the details of any other case, where the identity is supposed to be protected, such entries can be masked and given to the petitioner/accused. **5.** This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that the petitioner/accused has no vested right to obtain Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 6 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** copies of these documents, which are essentially maintained by the department officials as part of their job. **6.** The judgments in _**Shiju P.T**_ (supra) and Crl.M.C. No.3880/2024 are eloquent as regards the right of an accused to summon the General Diary. A perusal of paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of _**Shiju P.T**_ (supra) would make it clear that the General Diary, which is maintained in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act is different from Police Diary. Police Diary is maintained as per Section 172 of the Code. Imbibing the larger role of a Court to unearth the truth in every crime, a right to call for the General Diary has been recognised in these judgments, wherein, reliance is also seen placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Shamshul Kanwar**_ (supra). Therefore, the reasons, which weighed with the Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 7 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C, may not be sustainable. **7.** However, this Court notice that the case is only at the stage of Section 231 Cr.P.C and the same stands posted to 23.04.2025 for prosecution evidence. A clear right is seen conferred upon the accused, while entering upon defense in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C to compel the attendance of any witness, or for that matter, the production of any document or thing. Such an application is liable to be allowed, unless the Judge, for reasons to be recorded, considers that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. In _**Shiju P.T**_ (supra) in paragraph no.15, it has been observed that this right under Section 233 is an important right in the hands of the Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 8 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** defence and the same cannot be refused, except for the specific reasons mentioned in Section 233. Needless to say that, in view of the binding precedents above referred, the right of the petitioner/accused to summon the General Diary cannot be negated. However, it is not proper or legal to summon those documents at the stage of Section 231 Cr.P.C. This Court notice that in _**Shiju P.T**_ (supra) and in Crl.M.C.No.3880/2024, both, the right is sought to be enforced only at the stage of Section 233 Cr.P.C. There cannot be any quarrel that these documents are required only in support of the defence case; and not in anyway connected to the prosecution case, in respect of which evidence is supposed to be adduced at the stage of Section 231 Cr.P.C. If that be so, it will be more appropriate, legal and proper to relegate the petitioner/accused to exercise his right to summon these documents at the stage of the Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 9 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** defence evidence to be adduced in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C. Such right is reserved. **8.** In view of the above findings, the impugned Order does not warrant any interference as of now, although the reasons for the findings therein cannot be sustained. **9.** This Crl.M.C will stand disposed of as above, relegating the right of the petitioner/accused to summon the documents in terms of Section 91 Cr.P.C. Such application, if any, filed by the petitioner/ accused will be decided by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law, and also, in the light of the findings contained in this Order. ## ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025 ``` 2025:KER:30790 ``` - 10 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 898/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE 1A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CRL. M.P.NO. 09 OF 2025 IN S.C.NO. 1307 OF 2024 DATED 08/ 01/2025 ``` ``` ANNEXURE 2A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION DATED 08/01 2025 IN CRL. M.P.NO.09 OF 2025 IN S.C.NO.1307 OF 2024 ANNEXURE 3A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/ 01/2025 IN CRL.M.P.NO.09 OF 2025 IN S.C.NO. 1307 OF 2024 ```