Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4878 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.830/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA. CRIME NO. 681/2016 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION.** **........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED.:** **-----------------------------------** **MURALEEDHARAN, S/O SANKARAN NADAR, AGED 42 YEARS, SUMATHI MANDIRAM, NEAR PEELIYAMKONAM CHANNEL CROSS, VENKADAMBU DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER.** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:** **-----------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 4878 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.681/2016 DATED 15/04/2016 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B ATTESTED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.681/2016 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, PARASSALA DATED 15/04/2016.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 1[st] August, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.830 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class II, Neyyattinkara. He is charged with and proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 15.4.2016 at 10 am the petitioner had intentionally dashed his motor bike on the body of the _de facto_ complainant owing to previous enmity and caused injuries. - 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The learned counsel painstakingly took this court through the prosecution records and made an attempt to convince me that even if the prosecution allegations are admitted as true and correct, the ingredients of the offence under Section 324 will not be attracted. According to the Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 -2- learned counsel the prosecution had no case that the petitioner had committed the act intentionally or with the knowledge that it would cause pain. In view of the above Annexure B final report cannot be sustained and prays for quashing the same. The learned Counsel has relied on a series of pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court to advance his contentions. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that final report has already been laid and the matter is now pending before the learned Magistrate. According to the learned public prosecutor the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code is not liable to be entertained as the petitioner has an inviolable right to raise all his contentions before the Court below at the time of framing of charge and if the learned Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 -3- can be no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 7.The question, however, is when and under what situation, the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial. 8.In this context it will be relevant to remind oneself of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 -4- of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without a fullfledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is also settled that, if on taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, no offence was made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under S.482 CrPC. ( See **MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi** , 1983 (1) SCC 1; **Soundaram N V P.K. Ponnuraj and Another** ( 2014 (10) SCC 616 ). Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 -5- - 9.I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused. 10. In the case in hand, the charge sheet has been filed before the Court below. The procedure for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates is provided for in Chapter XIX of the Code. Section 238 of the Code specifically provides that at the stage of framing of charge, it is obligatory upon the learned Magistrate to hear the prosecution and the accused and if the learned Magistrate considers the Charge to be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused after recording his reasons. - 11.When alternate and comprehensive remedies are available for the petitioner under the Code, this Court will not be justified in sifting and weighing the materials in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. - 12.I am of the view that the petitioner is to approach the learned Magistrate and advance his contentions at the Crl.M.C. No. 4878 of 2016 -6- appropriate state. I find no good reason to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 13.In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is disposed off. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-1.8.16