Noufel M.M. v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940 Crl.MC.No. 7372 of 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMP 8238/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I, THODUPUZHA DATED 04-05-2015 CRIME NO. 1734/2013 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED: NOUFEL M.M. AGED 32 YEARS S/O. ISMAIL, MADUKKALATHIL HOUSE ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.JOY GEORGE SRI.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT SMT.TANYA JOY ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION THODUPUZHA 685 585. 3. MATHEW K. JOHN, AGE NOT KNOWN KARUVEPPILVEETTIL HOUSE UDUMPANOOR THODUPUZHA PIN 685 585. R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: : CRL.M.C. 7372/2015 ## ANNEXURES: A1 : CERTIFIIIIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS CMP NO. 8238/13 BEFORE THE JFCM I COURT THODIPUZHA. A2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 173/2013 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION. A3: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ON 4.5.2015 CONVERTING ANNEXURE A1 COMPLAINT AS CC NO. 563/2015. A4: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF HE DOCTOR IN ANNEXURE A1 COMPLAINT. A5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER. A6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARINKKUNAM POLICE STATION. A7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE SUB INSPPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJAAR POLICE STATION. A8: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA STATION. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ## **SHIRCY V., J.** **= = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 7372 of 2015** **= == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2018** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.563/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 324 of IPC. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing Annexure A1 complaint and Annexure A3 proceedings in CC 563/2015 as being purely an abuse of the process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Annexure-A1 complaint was filed by the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha alleging that on CRMC 7372/2015 2 21.8.2013 while he was standing near the public road near Sree Krishna Temple, Thodupuzha, the car driven by the petitioner/accused with the Chief Whip of Kerala State in the State car bearing registration No.100 rammed to the people standing nearby and the petitioner has intentionally caused injuries to the de facto complainant . Though the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant under Sections 279 and 308 IPC, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha has taken the case on file under Sections 279, 324 IPC. Now the matter is pending before the court as C.C.No.533/2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is true he was driving the car bearing registration No.100 with the Government Chief Whip on that particular day, but the official vehicle of the Chief Whip was accompanied by the police officials. The petitioner was on official duty as the driver of the State car and he was driving the car carefully following the pilot jeep of the police. So CRMC 7372/2015 3 there was no possibility of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to cause any kind of injury to the de facto complainant. Moreover, the de facto complainant is a stranger to the petitioner also. In fact, an unforeseen incident has happened as the vehicle of Chief Whip was obstructed by a procession formed in protest of some issue and the mob were having standing with sticks, iron rods and some other dangerous weapons. They caused damages to the official vehicle to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. Crime No.1734/2013 under Sections 143, 145, 146, 147, 353 and also under the provisions of the Damages to Public Property Act was registered against the agitators. The petitioner has further contended that he was actually on official duty and as he was following the pilot car and that too escorted by the local police, there was absolutely no scope of committing any offence as alleged and, therefore, the complaint filed against him by the 3[rd] respondent is only an abuse of process of the court and no purpose will be served, CRMC 7372/2015 4 if it is proceeded. Hence, he seeks to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings initiated pursuant to the complaint. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would contend that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and also intentionally caused injuries to the de facto complainant. 6. It is well settled that the statutory power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with care caution and only if the court is convinced that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution case, inherent jurisdiction of the court can be invoked. Bearing in mind, the legal proposition of law as enunciated in the decisions in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466], Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another**_ CRMC 7372/2015 5 _**(2018)1 SCC (Cr)1**_ etc. the issue involved has to be evaluated to find out whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 7. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident was on 21.8.2013. The 3[rd] respondent has filed the complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 279 and 308 IPC only on 3.9.2013. No explanation has been given for the delay in preferring the complaint after so many days of the incident. It is also to be noted that the petitioner's definite case is that he was on official duty and he was driving the official car of the Chief Whip with pilot and escort under the supervision of the Sub Inspectors of Kanjar and Karinkunnam. Moreover, from the records it is further revealed that the Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha and his team were also very much present at the alleged spot as some agitated mob tried to obstruct the Chief Whip who reached there after inaugurating a function. But, no case was registered then and there though the 3[rd] respondent has CRMC 7372/2015 6 a case that he was attacked by this petitioner by using the official car in which the Chief Whip was traveling . It is also interesting to note that before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, the de facto complainant and the Doctor, who is alleged to have treated him for the injuries sustained was examined. Annexure-A4 is the sworn statement of the doctor who was cited as the 2[nd] witness. The doctor has given statement to the effect that while he was working as General Surgeon, Thodupuzha he had examined the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant on 26.6.2014 and the history was taken by him as alleged assault on 21.8.2013 with multiple abrasion over scalp. It is strange to note that a person who had sustained only multiple abrasion over scalp was having injuries even after 10 months so as to issue a medical certificate evidencing injuries as the alleged incident was on 21.8.2013 and his examination was on 26.6.2014. It is emerged from his statement that the de facto complainant was not even examined or treated for the CRMC 7372/2015 7 alleged injuries sustained by him immediately after the incident. The glaring circumstance that is evident is that if he had sustained injuries and had undergone treatment immediately after the incident definitely records to substantiate the same would be available. It is an indication that no such medical evidence is available. 8. Considering the entire materials available before this Court, I find it difficult to infer that there is a prima facie case against this petitioner. In fact that the petitioner was driving an official car in tight security because of the presence agitated mob at the place of occurrence. In such a situation it is difficult to believe that an official driver with the intention to cause injuries to a particular person who is a stranger to him was attacked. Of-course, it is contended that only minimum scrutiny is expected at the stage of issuing process, but the court cannot overlook the glaring circumstances that would not make out a case as suggested by the complainant. From the undisputed facts, I have no CRMC 7372/2015 8 hesitation to conclude that Annexure-A1 complaint and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, in C.C.No.563/2015 deserves to be interfered with as prayed for. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ground 'G' has been withdrawn by him and no relief is sought for on that ground . Accordingly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A3 proceedings initiated by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha in C.M.P.No.8238/2013 dated 4.5.2015 against the petitioner pursuant to Annexure A1 complaint is hereby quashed. ## **Sd/-** ## **ks** ## **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** ## **True copy** **P.S.To Judge**