RadhaKrishnan, Prasanth Lal and Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.P 2626/2015 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.P 5558/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHALAKUDY DATED 16-06-2015** **CRIME NO. 621/2015 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:** - **1 RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KALLIKKATTU HOUSE, TKS PURAM, METHALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 PRASANTH LAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, MANKATTIL HOUSE, ELTHURUTHU DESOM, METHALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 ANIL KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O MUKUDAN MENON, MAKKIL HOUSE, CHAPPARA DESOM, PULLUT THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **BY ADV. SRI.K.SIMOD SIVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, ERIMMEL HOUSE, THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE, KUZHOOR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE-CONTROL ROOM, KONDUNGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **3** ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No. 621 of 2015 of the Mala Police Station. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 307 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 3. On 14.06.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, while the de facto complainant was travelling in his motor bike, a skirmish occurred with the petitioners herein, who were travelling in a car. It is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injuries. 4. The contention of the learned counsel essentially is that the allegations, even if admitted in its entirety, will not make out an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. No injuries whatsoever was sustained by the de facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, a minor altercation between the parties were blown out of proportion merely because, the victim is a police officer. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **4** that the crime was registered in the year 2015 and this Court by order dated 6.8.2015 had stayed the proceedings. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, as to whether the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out or not would certainly be looked into by the investigating officer. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. As has been held prima facie by this Court in order dated 6.8.2018, no external injuries have been sustained by the de facto complainant. However, for the sole reason that while registering the crime a grave offence was included, is no reason to quash the FIR. 7. It is settled that terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold itself or at the stage of FIR is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and with great circumspection. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently has given a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **5** allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. 8. In **R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others** [2009(1) SCC 516], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the circumstances under which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 will be justified in quashing the FIR. In paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 it was held as follows: 14. However, Dr. Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others 2008 (9) SCC p.798, para 36, held : "36.........The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage." 15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **6** (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” Same view was taken in **Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana** [1977 (4) SCC 451], and in **Som Mittal V Government of Karnataka** [2008 (3) SCC 574]. 9. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions and contentions and after having tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. **7** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** 10. I take note of the fact that the investigation is presently being conducted by the 3[rd] respondent. The investigation shall be taken over by the 2[nd] respondent forthwith and he shall complete the investigation and submit the final report without any further delay. The officer shall look into the statements of the victim and the wound certificates and decide whether the petitioners herein are to be called upon to answer a charge under Section 307 or Section 324 of the IPC. With the above observations, this petition will stand dismissed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE avs **Crl.MC.No. 4618 of 2015** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.621/15 OF MALA POLICE STATION** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF AGITATIONS AND MEETINGS IN WHICH THE 2ND PETITIONER ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF AGITATIONS AND MEETINGS IN WHICH THE 2ND PETITIONER ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED** - **ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOKS OF THE MEETING DATED 14/06/2015** - **ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.5558/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,CHALAKKUDY** - **ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINSTER FOR HOME AND VIGILANCE** - **ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-72015 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,THRISSUR.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE**