High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAllowed; proceedings quashed
Sayanth v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Pinarayi Police Station (Crl.M.C. Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022)
Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 1154 OF 2022; CRL.MC NO. 1164 OF 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-10-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petitions are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner including the final reports in Crime Nos.66/2021 and 67/2021 of Pinarayi Police Station, are quashed.
- Final Disposition
- Allowed; proceedings quashed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sayanth
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
- The Station House Officer, Pinarayi Police Station represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mansoor Ali
- • Dheeraj Krishnan Perot
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (State of Kerala)
- • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (The Station House Officer, Pinarayi Police Station)
Case Synopsis & Summary
These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, filed by Sayanth, were heard together as they arise from two separate complaints registered at Pinarayi Police Station (Crime Nos. 66/2021 and 67/2021) under offences including 447 and 153 read with 34 IPC. The High Court of Kerala, in a common order dated 9 October 2023, examined whether the final reports in these cases disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences and whether the petitions to quash should be allowed. The judge found that even if the entire allegations in the final reports are accepted, the offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC is not made out, since the described acts do not amount to intentional unlawful entry, or the necessary elements for trespass, given the factual matrix. More crucially, the court held that the act under Section 153 IPC—alleged to provoke factional rioting by removing or damaging political campaign material—does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Relying on Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala (2023) and the interpretation of 'malignantly' and 'wantonly' as requiring a higher degree of malice, and on the principle that 'illegal' should be given a wide meaning under Section 43 IPC (per Venkatkrishnan v. CBI), the court concluded that the acts described did not amount to either offence. Consequently, the two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, with the final reports in Crime Nos. 66/2021 and 67/2021 quashed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 447 IPCSection 153 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 43 IPC
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Malignantly and wantonly are not synonyms; higher degree of malice is required (Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala, 2023 (3) KHC 324).
- Illegal
- defined in S.43 IPC to have a wide meaning (R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, 2009 (11) SCC 737).
- For Section 153 IPC, the act must provoke or be likely to provoke rioting; actual rioting need not occur.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the final reports do not disclose any offence under 447 IPC or 153 IPC; removal or non-raising of political campaign material cannot amount to a crime of rioting or any of the alleged offences; even if the acts were illegal, they do not exhibit malignancy or wantonness required by Section 153 IPC; hence, the petitions deserved quashing under the inherent jurisdiction.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the acts described in the final reports amount to offences under 447 IPC and 153 IPC as read with 34 IPC; malice or wantonness is alleged to provoke others and disrupt political processes; the matter requires judicial scrutiny of the sufficiency of allegations before sunk into proceedings; hence, no quashing should be allowed unless the allegations fail to disclose an offence.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala | 2023(3) KHC 324 | Positive | Used to define 'malignantly' and 'wantonly' in Section 153 IPC; supports the view that these terms imply a higher degree of malice and that mere acts like removing or affixing a poster may not suffice. |
| R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation | 2009 (11) SCC 737 | Positive | Cited for the broad interpretation of the word 'illegal' in Section 43 IPC. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Sayanth v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Pinarayi Police Station (Crl.M.C. Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022) 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.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1154 OF 2022
```
## **`PETITIONER:`**
```
SAYANTH
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O RATHEESH, REGHANIVAS, MAMBARAM,
KANNUR. PIN 670622, PIN - 670622
BY ADVS.
MANSOOR ALI
DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT
```
## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`**
```
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PINARAYI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
```
```
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSIONON09.10.2023,ALONGWITH
Crl.MC.1164/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
```
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**2**
# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1164 OF 2022
```
## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`**
```
SAYANTH
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O RATHEESH, AGED 22, REGHA NIVAS,
MAMBARAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670622
BY ADVS.
MANSOOR ALI
DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT
```
## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`**
```
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PINARAYI POLICE STATION.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
```
```
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSIONON09.10.2023,ALONGWITH
Crl.MC.1154/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
```
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**3**
## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.**
## **-------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of October, 2023**
## **ORDER**
This two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed by the same petitioner with same set of allegations. Therefore, I am disposing these two cases by a common order.
2. Crl.M.C.No.1164/2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.66/2021 of Pinarayi Police Station. Crl.M.C.No.1154/2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.67/2021 of Pinarayi Police Station. Both these cases are registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 447 and 153 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). The final report filed in these cases are Annexure-A2. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the final reports in these two cases:
## Crl.M.C.No.1164/2022:
2021 ഏപ്രിൽ മാസം 4-)o തീയതി രാത്രി 10 മണിക പാതിരിയാട് അംശം, കേ ളപൂർ എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തു കിഴക്കു പടിഞ്ഞാറായി സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന മമ്പറം പുതിയ പാലത്തിന്റെ വടക ക ഭാഗം അരികിൽ സ്ഥിതിചെ യ്യുന്ന പച്ചയിൽ വെ ളുത്ത
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**4**
പ്രതലത്തിൽ അഞ്ചരക്കണ്ടി പുഴ എനന എഴുതിയ ബ ോർഡിന്റെ തൂണിൽനിന്നും സുമാർ 15 മീറ്റർ വടകക-കിഴകക മാറിയും, മേപ്പടി പാലത്തിന്റെ വടക്കു-ഭാഗത്തു സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന മമ്പറം എഡ്യൂക്കേഷണൽ ട്രസറ്റ ഗ്രൗണട ESTD 2005 എനന ബ ോർഡ് വച്ച മമ്പറം ഹയർ സെ ക്കന് ി സ്കൂൾ ഗ്രൗണ്ടിന്റെ ക പ്രവേ ശനകവാടത്തിന്റെ തെ ക - ഭാഗം തൂണിൽ നിന്നും സുമാർ 20 മീറ്റർ വടക്കു-കിഴക്കു മാറിയും, സ്ഥാപിച്ച മമ്പറം എഡ്യൂക്കേഷണൽ സ സൊസൈ റ്റി ഗ്രൗണ്ടിൽ സ സൊസൈ റ്റിയുടെ അനുമതിയയോടെ സ്ഥാപിച്ച ധർമടം മണ്ഡലം LDF സ്ഥാനാർഥി പിണറായി വിജയൻ അവർകളുടെ കടട ഔട്ടിന്റെ തലയുടെ ഭാഗം BJP പ്രവർത്തകരായ 1 മുതൽ കൂടിയ പ്രതികൾ സ്ഥലത്തു രാഷ്ട്രീയ സംഘർഷം ഉണ്ടാക്കണം എന്ന ലക ത്തോടുകൂടി അതിക്രമിച്ചു കയറി നശിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കയാൽ പ്രതികൾ u/s 447, 153 r/w 34 IPC പ്രകാരം ശിക്ഷാർഹമായ കുറ്റം ചെ യ്തിരിക്കുന്നു.”
## Crl.M.C.No.1154/2022:
2021 ഏപ്രിൽ മാസം 5-)o തീയതി പുലർച്ചെ 1.30 മണിക പാതിരിയാട് അംശം, കേ ളപൂർ ദേശത്തു തെ ക്കു വടക്കായി സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന മമ്പറം ടെലിഫ ോൺ എകസചേ ഞ കുഴിയിൽപീടിക പബ്ലിക് താർ ററോഡിന്റെ പടിഞ്ഞാറ് ഭാഗത്തു കിഴകക ദർശനമായി സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന വേ ണാട് ഗ്രാമ ., പഞ്ചായതത XIV/255B എനന നമ്പർ പതിച്ച വിജേ ഷ്.സി.കെ S/o.കുഞ്ഞിക്കണ്ണൻ, വ: 38/21, താരക (H), മമ്പറം എന്നവരും കുടുംബവും താമസിക്കുന്ന ഇരുനില വാർപപ വീടിന്റെ വടക്കുകിഴക്കേമൂലയിൽ നിനന സുമാർ 15 മീറ്റർ വടക്കു-കിഴക്കു മാറി
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**5**
സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന ശാന്ത.കെ . w/o. നാണു (Late), വ: 67/21, നടുക്കണ്ടി (H), മമ്പറം എന്നവരുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലുള്ള വീട്ടുപറമ്പിന്റെ മൺകിളയിൽ BJP പ്രവർത്തകരായ 1 മുതൽ 3 വരെയുള്ള പ്രതികൾ സ്ഥലത്തു രാഷ്ട്രീയ സംഘർഷം ഉണ്ടാകണമെന്നുള്ള ലക ത്തോടുകൂടി അതിക്രമിച്ചു കയറി LDF ന്റെ തെ രഞ്ഞെടുപ പ്രചാരണ പ പോസ്്റകൾ കീറി നശിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കയാൽ പ്രതികൾ u/s 447, 153 r/w 34 IPC പ്രകാരം ശിക്ഷാർഹമായ കുറ്റം ചെ യ്തിരിക്കുന്നു.”
3. Even if the entire allegations in the above final report are accepted, I am of the prima facie opinion that the offence under Section 447 IPC is not made out. Even as per the prosecution case, the allegation is only to the effect that a portion of the cut-out of the LDF candidate was removed, which was placed in a public place. This Court considered the ingredients of Section 153 IPC in the order dated 209.09.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.1895/2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“ 7. The essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 153 IPC are as follows:-
1) the accused did an illegal act.
2) the act was done malignantly or wantonly.
3) the act was done with the intention to provoke or
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**6**
knowing that it will provoke a person to cause the offence of rioting.
8. This court in **Sanjeev S. vs. State of Kerala** [2023(3) KHC 324], considered the scope of Section 153 IPC. It would be better to extract Paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the above judgment.
“7. The word malignantly and wantonly are not used synonymously in the Section. The word malignantly is used for the purpose of expressing a higher degree of intensity or ill-will. While the word wantonly means causing harm or damage deliberately. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines the word malignantly as 'having or showing a strong desire to harm somebody.' Similarly, the word wantonly is explained as 'in a way that causes harm or damage deliberately and for no acceptable reason.'
8. Both these terms convey that the two expressions 'malignantly' or 'wantonly’ used in S.153 IPC indicate that there must be a higher degree of malice or evil that is projected or evident in the act alleged. The provision further requires that the act alleged to be done must be illegal. The word illegal is defined in S.43 of IPC to mean everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes a ground for a civil action. As held in R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2009 (11) SCC 737, the word has to be given a wide meaning.
10. Further, to bring home the guilt of the offence under S.153 IPC, it is necessary that the act gives provocation to a person and also provoke or is likely to provoke a rioting. Though, for the offence to be attracted, actual rioting need not occur.”
9. The prosecution case is that on 10.10.2015, the accused affixed a poster containing the picture of a lotus on an electric post using gum and while doing so the accused made commotion near Annamkulangara Devi Temple. I fail to
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**7**
understand how Section 153 IPC is attracted in the facts, even if the above allegations are accepted. The only overt act attributed to the accused is that he affixed a poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric post and made commotion. I am of the considered opinion that even if that act is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not made out. Of course, it may be an illegal act to affix a poster on an electric post. But affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly. In Sanjeev’s case (supra), this court observed that the word malignantly and wantonly are not used synonymously in the section. The word malignantly is used for the purpose of expressing a higher degree of intensity or ill-will. While the word wantonly means causing harm or damage deliberately. The words malignantly or wantonly used in Section 153 IPC, indicate that there must be a degree of malice or evil that is projected or evident in the act alleged. As I observed earlier, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not made out.”
4. In the light of the above judgment, I think no offence under Section 153 IPC is also made out against the petitioner.
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**8**
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner including the final report in Crime Nos.66/2021 and 67/2021 of Pinarayi Police Station, are quashed.
JV
sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**9**
## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1154/2022`**
```
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. NO. 67OF
2021 OF PINARAYI POLICE STATION
Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CC 738/2021 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASERRY
```
CrlM.C..Nos.1154 & 1164 of 2022
**10**
## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1164/2022`**
```
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. NO. 66 OF
2021 OF PINARAY POLICE STATION
Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
C.C 850/2021 ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASERRY
```