Shanavas P.A. and Muhammed Haneefa v. Village Officer, Thirunelli Village; The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirunelli Police Station; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2014/12TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1101 of 2012 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 91/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MANANTHAVADY CRIME NO. 288/2011 OF THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT -----------------------------------** **APPLICANTS/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **1. SHANAVAS P.A., S/O.AROGYAM,AGED 41 YEARS, PADAMCHERI HOUSE, P.O.VEMAM, CHETTAPALAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **2. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O.P.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 47 YEARS, PARAYANKAVIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTIKULAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **THIRUNELLI VILLAGE, P.O.KATTIKULAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PIN- 670 645.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.** **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JITHESH.R.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **CRMC.NO.1101/2012** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX 1- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.288/11. ANNEX 2- TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.288/11. ANNEX 3- TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND SCENE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.288/11. ANNEX 4- TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.288/11. ANNEX 5- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF LANDED PROPERTY. ANNEX 6- TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE OF TIMBER INVOLVED IN THE CASE. ANNEX 7- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CC.91/12 CASE ARISING FROM CRIME 288/11. ANNEX 8- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CC.91/12.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1101 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** The petitioners, who are the 3[rd] and 4[th] accused in Crime No.288/2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, which was registered U/s.379 r/w. 34 IPC and is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady as C.C. No.91/2012, have approached this Court to quash Annexures-A1 and A8 charge sheet by invoking the inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. The allegation in the above case is that the Village Officer, Thirunelli Village got information that the petitioners and two other persons had cut and removed valuable trees standing in the revenue land assigned to tribal people. On the basis of that information, he visited the place of occurrence and seized the entire timber, after preparing mahazar. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the Tirunelli Police and on the basis of that Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 2 information, Thirunelli Police registered the above crime. Annexure-1 is the F.I.R. After completing investigation, Thirunelli Police laid Annexure-8 before Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that no evidence has been produced by the 1[st] respondent to show that the petitioners have any connection with the above alleged crime. In Annexure-1, there was no mention about the petitioners and in the final report also, the witnesses did not give evidence to connect them. They were arrayed as accused without conducting a proper investigation and therefore, trial is mere abuse of process of the Court. The learned counsel relied two decisions of the Apex Court in _**Vijaya Rao**_ v. _**State of Rajasthan and another**_ [(2005) 7 SCC 69] and _**Joseph Salvaraj A.**_ v. _**State of Gujarat and others**_ [(2011) 7 SCC 59]. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition and contended that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, after investigation. If any Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 3 interference in the final report is made at this stage, it would affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 4. The inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 can be invoked 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. The petitioners' case is that they were arrayed as accused without considering the oral and documentary evidence in this case. I have perused the documents submitted by the petitioners. Annexure-8 shows that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the other accused in the case. But, the culpability of the petitioners and other accused is a matter of evidence, which can be revealed only after a detailed enquiry. Necessary verification of the documentary evidence with regard to the right in the property is to be made by the Village Officer. The petitioners are cooli workers of the alleged purchasers. The petitioners contended that there is no evidence to Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 4 connect them as the purchasers of the tree. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that when prima facie case is made out against the petitioners by filing a charge sheet, it is the responsibility of the Magistrate to verify the averment with regard to their connection in the case. The Apex Court in 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”. Accepting the above legal principle, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and dispose the petition with the above observation. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 5 Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 6 Crl.M.C.No.1101/12 7