Somasekharan and Bindhu v. Venugopalan and The Sub Inspector of Police, Narakkal Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/2ND PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3171 of 2011** **---------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO.796/2011 OF THE NARAKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **-----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SOMASEKHARAN,** - **S/O.VENUGOPALAN, HOUSE NO.XII/337(A), ELANKUNNAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. BINDHU,** - **W/O.SOMASEKHARAN, HOUSE NO.XII/337(A), ELANKUNNAPPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.S.R.SREEJITH** **COMPLAINANT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. VENUGOPALAN, S/O.ANANDHANPILLA, NIRMALYAM, ELANKUNNAPPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682551.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** - **NARAKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3171 of 2011** ## **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.796/2011 OF THE NARAKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash AnnexureA1 and all further criminal proceedings in Crime No.796/2011 of Njarakkal Police Station, which is registered U/s.379, 380,403, 406, 448, 454 r/w 34 IPC. The above case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, which was sent over to Njarakkal Police U/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. After completing investigation, Njarakkal police filed Anneuxre-A1 FIR before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court to quash the above crime invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C.can be Crl.M.C.No.3171/11 2 invoked only for the three ground mentioned thereunder. Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction to make such orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. While exercising jurisdiction, the Court is not bound to analyze the evidence furnished in the allegation. In the _**State of Haryana** v_ . _**Bhajanlal**_ , the Supreme Court pointed out that: [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] “(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). (5) Where the allegations 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing Crl.M.C.No.3171/11 3 efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance. ## The Apex Court in _**Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra**_ ## [(1977) 4 SCC 551] held as follows: “The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions: (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted n any other provision of the Code.” 3. The facts and circumstances in this case show that the petitioners and 1[st] respondent are close relatives. The 1[st] petitioner is the son of the 1[st] respondent and there was a family dispute between them. In such a situation, the 1[st] respondent filed Annexure-A1 complaint against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is chance to settle the above dispute Crl.M.C.No.3171/11 4 between the parties. The police referred Sections 379, 380, 448, 454 IPC and now remains only Sections 403 and 406 IPC. However, both the offences are compoundable with the permission of the Court. The facts and circumstances highlighted in Annexure-A1 show that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. If that be the position, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime. However, the petitioners are at liberty to settle the matter in the trial court as submitted. If the petitioners file any compromise petition in the trial court, the learned Magistrate shall consider that application and dispose of the case in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.3171/11 5 Crl.M.C.No.3171/11 6