High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-02-26Petition disposed of (not quashed); directions ...

Reji Jacob and Maneesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1628 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is not allowed to quash the final report. The High Court held that, on the facts, this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash. Since the injured is abroad, the petitioners may raise such issues before the trial Magistrate when the injured appears. If any application is filed regarding personal appearance, the Magistrate shall decide in accordance with law. The Cr.M.C. is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of (not quashed); directions issued for trial court to address personal appearance as per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reji Jacob
Maneesh

Respondents

State of Kerala
Jiju Abraham
Vipin Thomas
Vinoj Thomas

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ajith Murali

Counsels for Respondents

• Reji Joseph
• P. V. Dileep

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in Crl.MC.No.1628 of 2012, heard a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report in CC 187/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, arising from Crime No.518/2010 of the Thiruvalla Police Station. The accused A2 and A4 (Reji Jacob and Maneesh) are charged under IPC sections 294(b), 324, 326, 452, 427 r/w 34, for trespassing into the defacto complainant’s house with a dangerous weapon (an iron rod) and causing grievous injuries. The petition argues amicable settlement with the defacto complainant, who is currently abroad, and contends that continuing with the trial would be an abuse of process and unnecessary since the injured is unlikely to be available for evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor counters that a prima facie case exists and the injury details have not been substantiated by a wound certificate, so the trial should proceed. The court recalls the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cites Bhajan Lal’s standard, but finds that this is not a fit case to quash the final report. Since the parties are neighbours and settlement is contemplated, the matter can be raised before the trial magistrate on appearance of the injured. The petition is disposed of with directions for the trial court to consider personal-appearance issues in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482Indian Penal Code sections 294(b), 324, 326, 452, 427 read with 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) SCC (Crl) 426 — inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where allegations are absurd and improbable; ends of justice; abuse of process of court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the case is already amicably settled with the defacto complainant, who is their neighbour and is presently abroad, making the likelihood of adducing evidence very remote. They contended that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process and an unnecessary hardship, and urged quashing of the final report under the inherent powers of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. They relied on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI to support settlement as a basis to exercise inherent jurisdiction.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contended that the injured is abroad but that does not negate the prima facie case; the matter should be handled by the trial court, and the petition should be disposed of rather than quashed. He argued the record shows serious offences and the trial should proceed, with the accused having the opportunity to be heard, particularly when the injured may appear or via other lawful means. The court should not invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash at the pre-trial stage.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel as supportive authority; the court mentions the decision but does not rely on it to grant relief.
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation	2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel; the court references the decision without applying it to grant relief.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal	1992 SCC (Crl) 426	Positive	Cited and relied upon as the guiding principle for exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.; the court applies the standard to conclude this is not a fit case to quash.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Reji Jacob and Maneesh v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/7TH PHALGUNA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2012** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 187/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA CRIME NO. 518/2010 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **---------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A2 & A4:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. REJI JACOB, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O JACOB, THANNIKKAL VEEDU, AJILITHANAM MURI, KUNNATHANNAUM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2. MANEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O KUNJUMON, KOLATHANADU KEEZATHIL VEEDU, AJILITHANAM MURI, KUNNATHANNAUM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.** **2. JIJU ABRAHAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O ABRAHAM, KUNNEL THAVARA KULAGARA VEEDU, PADIJATTUSHERRY MURI, KAVYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DSTRICT 689645.** **3. VIPIN THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O P.C. THOMAS, PAYNUMUTTIL VEEDU, PULLITHANNAUM MURI, MUNNATHANNAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645** **4. VINOJ THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS** - **S/O P.C. THOMAS, PAYNUMUTTIL VEEDU, PULLITHANNAUM MURI KUNNATHANNAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH R2 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A. A PHOTO COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 518/2010 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE** **----------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1628 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.187/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. The above case was registered by the Thiruvalla police as Crime No.518/2010 for the offences punishable u/ss.294(b), 324, 326, 452, 427 r/w 34 IPC. The allegation in the above case was that on 29.04.2010 at 9.00 p.m., the accused in the above case trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons like iron rode and assaulted him, which resulted grievous injury in the left hand of the defacto complainant. On the basis of the information, Thiruvalla Police registered the above crime and after investigation filed final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 2 Thiruvalla. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash Anneuxre-A. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant amicably. Moreover, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours. The injured is now working abroad and there is no chance for his presence in India for adducing evidence. Since the matter is settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, there is no necessity to conduct the trial further and it is an abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prays to quash Annexure-A final report. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied two decisions of this Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot**_ v. _**State of Punjab**_ [2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)] and _**Nikhil Merchant**_ v. _**Central Bureau of Investigation**_ [2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)] . 3. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the above argument and contended that since the injured is Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 3 now working abroad, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial court and seek for an early disposal of the case at the time of appearance of the injured. Hence he prays to dispose the petition. 4. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A final report. The petitioners contended that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence of the incident and they have no knowledge about the incident. They were falsely implicated in a criminal case and they have discussed the matter with the defacto complainant and he has no objection in quashing the final report. 5. From the records it is clear that serious offences were alleged against the petitioners. Even though the defacto complainant stated that he sustained serious injury, the respondents have not produced any wound Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 4 certificate for ascertaining the nature of injury. When final report is pending before the trial court, it is clear that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. When prima case is made out against the petitioners, it is a matter of evidence by the trial court. According to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the inherent powers can be invoked only for the three grounds mentioned therein, i.e, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the _**State of Haryana**_ V. _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] the Supreme Court pointed out that: “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that this is not a fit case to quash the final report by invoking the inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. Since Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 5 the petitioners and the injured are neighbours and intended to settle the matter, they can submit these facts before the trial Magistrate on appearance of the injured. Since the defacto complainant is working abroad, there is no possibility obtaining his presence, recently, for a trial. In such circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to highlight all these facts before the trial Magistrate. Since petitioners are working outside Kerala, if any application is filed by them with regard to the personal appearance, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of that application in accordance with law, on production of a copy of this order in the trial court. The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 6 Crl.M.C.No.1628/12 7