Santhosh and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.4440 OF 2018** **CRIME NO.607/2018 OF Aryanad Police Station on the file of the Judicial Fist class Magistrate court-I, Nedumangad(Now it is pending before the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7:** **1 SANTHOSH AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, CHERAPPALLY THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, CHERAPPALLY, PARANDODE P.O, ARYANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 542. 2 RAJAN AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. APPUKKUTTAN, KADIYOORKKONAM, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLANADU P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 543. 3 SHIBU @ SHIJU AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. WILSON, SHIJU BHAVAN, MARUTHUMMOODU,POONGAVANAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O, ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4 MANOJ AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. YESUDASAN, MUNDAYKKADU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,VELLANAD P.O, VELLNAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 543. 5 DASAN @ YESUDASAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. DANIEL, MUNDAYKKADU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,VELLANAD P.O, VELLNAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 543. 6 JUSTIN BABU AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THANKAYYAN NADAR, KAVUMTHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, THOLOOR, ARYANAD P.O, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 542.** 2 Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 **7 WILSON AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, KADIYOORKKONAM, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLANADU P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 543.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI - 682 031.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **3 ANITHA AGED 42 YEARS 42 YEARS, D/O. SUMATHI, KADIYOORKONAM, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLANAD VILLAGE, VELLANAD P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 543.** **R1, R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SRI.AMJAD ALI, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 3 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4440 of 2018** **------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2020.** ## **O R D E R** This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking orders quashing the first information report in Crime No.607 of 2018 of Aryanad Police Station. The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in the crime which was registered for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accusation in the case is that on 13.05.2018, at about 3.30 pm, with the knowledge and connivance of accused 6 and 7, accused 1 to 5 barged into the house of the de-facto complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, with a chopper, and abused the de-facto complainant using filthy language and assaulted her and her family members. The case set out by the petitioners in the 4 Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 Criminal M.C. is that the accusation against them is false and the case is one instituted maliciously alleging commission of the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with a view to coerce the sixth accused to settle the civil dispute between him and the de facto complainant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The registration of the first information report is the process in terms of which the criminal law is set in a cognizable case. True, the first information report and all further proceedings thereto can be quashed by this court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, _prima facie,_ constitute any cognizable offence, or where the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 5 private and personal grudge. It is, however, settled that the power to quash the first information report is a power that must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. It is also settled that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry in such cases as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. The court cannot also enquire whether the allegations in the first information report are likely to be established [ **See M.Narayandas v. State of Karnataka** , (2003)11 SCC 251]. 4. Reverting to the facts, as noted, the petitioners do not have a case that the allegations made in the first information report do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence. Their case, on the other hand, is only that the case is one maliciously instituted. The petitioners have not placed on record any material from which it could be inferred that the accusation is false and that the case is one maliciously instituted. The case set out by the petitioners is only that there is a civil dispute between the defacto complainant and the sixth accused pertaining to a pathway and the case is instituted with a view to 6 Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 coerce the sixth accused to settle the said civil dispute. Merely for the reason that there is a civil dispute pending between the defacto complainant and the sixth accused, it cannot be inferred that the case is false. The case is, therefore, not a rarest of rare cases where this court would exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the first information report. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case, in the circumstances, is without any merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** PV Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R (CITIZEN COPY) IN CRIME NO.607/18, DATED 15.05.18 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3759/2011, OF S.R.O VELLANAD IS EXECUTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE INFAVOUR OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** - **ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.386/2018 DT. 17/03/2018 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S NO. 238/2018 DATED 20-03-2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD.** - **ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN O.S NO.238/18 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT - II, NEDUMANGAD.** - **ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IN O.S NO. 238/18.** - **ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 31/03/2018.** - **ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE R.D.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/03/2018.** - **ANNEXURE 9 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.609/2018 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION REGISTERED AGAINST THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** 8 Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 **ANNEXURE 10 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.706/2018 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION, REGISTERED AGAINST THE 6TH PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 20/06/2018.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R3(a) THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHED ANNEXURE R3(b) THE COPY OF THE SECOND COMMISSION REPORT DATED 17.07.2018**