Nazim Khan Sainudeen v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 28716 OF 2017** **WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER:** **NAZIM KHAN SAINUDEEN AGED 29 YEARS S/O ALIYARU KUNJU SAINUDEEN, T.C.NO.7/1967,ULLOOR GARDENS-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 13-C, OLIVE WOOD STOCK BLOCK-B, STADIUM LINK ROAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682025. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN SMT.NIMITHA SALIM SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKARA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, 682 016** **SR.PP - SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON** **26.11.2021, THE COURT ON 13.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.752/2017 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam which was taken on file on the culmination of investigation in Crime No.122/2017 of Ernakulam Town North police station. The alleged incident had happened on 17.01.2017 at 19:45 hours. It is the common case that petitioner had driven his Maruthi 800 car bearing registration No.KL-22-A-1828 through Azad road from south to north. According to the petitioner, he wanted to proceed towards Aluva by taking right turn at Mathrubhoomi junction; there was no traffic sign which prevented vehicle turning right from Azad road. When he was about to turn right, the lady police officer who was on traffic duty directed him to stop the vehicle in the midway and asked him to proceed towards Kaloor junction and take 'U' turn there, to go to Edappally direction. Then he told the police officer that there is no traffic sign prohibiting right turn, which infuriated her and the officer shouted at him and told him that he would be taught a lesson. In obedience to the direction, he proceeded to Kaloor where the Circle Inspector of Police blocked him and he was directed to proceed to the W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 3 traffic police station at Edappally. When he tried to explain to the Circle Inspector, his explanations were neglected and he was made to remain in the police station till 01:00 hours. Meanwhile, he was taken to the General Hospital and made to undergo medical checkup. Then he was taken to the Ernakulam town police station and was released from custody along with the vehicle after making to sign certain documents. At that time, he never knew that a crime would be registered against him. But later he understood that Crime No.122/2017 was registered alleging offence under Sections 283 and 506 of the IPC. Later a charge sheet was laid before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam alleging offence under Sections 283 and 506 (ii) of the IPC where the case has been taken on file as C.C.No.752/2017. 2. According to the petitioner, the allegations are false. He has not caused any danger or any obstruction to the public way or line of navigation nor he had threatened anyone or caused injury to anyone or to any property. Even assuming that he was made to stop his car at margin/median line of the Banerji road under the viaduct of the Metro Rail, that would not cause any danger or obstruction to the public way. The allegations are baseless. There was no police personnel at W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 4 the northern end of Azad road and there was no sign board prohibiting right turn from Azad road. The date and time of registration of crime has been tampered. The crime was registered after he was made to undergo medical check up. There is delay in producing the FIR before court; everything has been done proving malafides. All the material witnesses are police officials, who are on inimical terms with the petitioner. Ingredients of offence under the Sections of the IPC are not available and therefore, entire proceedings are sought to be quashed. 3. The Investigating Officer filed a statement contending that the crime was registered when he had disobeyed the lawful directions of the Women Civil Police Officer, Smt. Soumya Thilakan who was on traffic duty and tried to take right turn from the northern end of Azad road; then he was stopped which made him furious. He stopped the vehicle across the main road causing traffic block and intimidated Smt. Soumya Thilakan and another police officer. Then the Sector Officer reached the place and asked him to take the vehicle towards Kaloor, he was intercepted and the crime was registered on 18.01.2017 and the delayed entry had happened due to lack of adequate network connection. W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 5 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. According to the learned counsel, the delay in registering the crime is very material. When the police officials had misbehaved with him, he told them that he would make a complaint, there followed some exchange of words and infuriated by the same, the crime has been registered. According to the learned counsel, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner either to cause traffic block or to intimidate the police officials. He also relied on the decisions reported in **Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [AIR 2019 SC 2109]** and **Jose v. Subramanyan and another [2015 (4) KHC 332].** 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has submitted that the First Information Statement was given on the same day of the occurrence. The officials do not have any personal reasons to implicate him in a false case. 7. It is stated that the petitioner is an Engineer by profession working for the Metro Rail project, at the relevant time. It is the common case that he was driving his car through the Azad road from south to north and the incident had happened at the northern end of W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 6 the road at Banerji road, where he wanted to take a right turn towards Aluva. According to the prosecution, it is not permissible; a person reaching Banarjee road from Azad road destined to Aluva have to take left turn and then to take 'U' turn at Kaloor for proceeding towards Aluva. According to the petitioner, there is no signal prohibiting right turn at Azad road end and that made him to take the vehicle, which was prevented by the Woman Civil Police Officer. Whatever it may be, from the reports given by Smt. Soumya Thilakan, the Woman Civil Police Officer and statement of Pradeep, SCPO 8276, it is clear that even though he wanted to take the vehicle towards right from Mathrubhoomi Junction, at last, he had moved towards Kaloor junction, in obedience to the directions given by the police officials. 8. It may be true that meanwhile there was some wordy altercation between himself and the police officials; the petitioner had insisted to take the vehicle towards right from Azad road which was not permitted. Even though the prosecution wanted to say that he had stopped the vehicle at the middle of the road and caused traffic block, from the prosecution records it cannot be inferred as to how long such a traffic block was created. On the other hand, from the reports, it is clear that when the altercation was going on, W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 7 the officials had made way for the movement of vehicles. This would belie the allegation that he had caused traffic block at the area. 9. As stated earlier, at last the petitioner had taken the vehicle towards Kaloor Junction. In other words, he did not venture to take a right turn from Azad road junction, in negation of the directions of the police. Even though it is alleged that infuriated by the directions of the police, the petitioner had raced the car and took against the police constable and then drove towards Kaloor, that cannot stand to reason. In this connection, it requires to be stated that except one, all witnesses are police officials. After perusing the records produced by the petitioner, there are reasons to understand that a trivial issue has been blown out of proportion to register a crime and lay a charge sheet against the petitioner alleging offence under Sections 283 and 506(ii) of IPC. As indicated, it is not stated that how long the traffic block had continued. The allegation of criminal intimidation also does not stand to reason. There might have been some heated exchange of words between the parties but that can not cause alarm to members W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 8 of the uniformed force. The registration of crime seems to be the out come of an ego clash. Having gone through the materials, I am not inclined to believe that a successful prosecution would be possible. The petitioner has already sinned than sinning. He was taken to hospital for medical examination and nothing abnormal was noticed, he was made to remain in surveillance for long time in police station. 10. After evaluating the entire materials, I am not convinced that the prosecution should continue. The entire proceedings in C.C. No.752 of 2017 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam are quashed and the petitioner shall stand exonerated. The Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **K. HARIPAL JUDGE** Jms/11.01 //True Copy// P.A to Judge W.P.(C).No.28716 of 2017 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28716/2017** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CITIZEN COPY RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF KERALA POLICE. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0122/2017 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM,DATED 17-10-2017 EXHIBIT P4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.0122 OF 2017 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM AND NUMBERED AS CC 752 OF 2017.**