Thimothivadakkan, Trinson and George Augustine v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur District

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINCC1044/2021OFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS-I,THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1THIMOTHIVADAKKAN AGED51YEARS S/OVDANTONY, VADAKKANHOUSEROYALAVENUE,NELLANKARA, - EASTFORT,THRISSURDISTRICT.,PIN680005 2TRINSON AGED28YEARS S/OTHIMOTHI, VADAKKANHOUSE,ROYALAVENUENELLANKARA, - THRISSURDISTRICT.,PIN680005 BYADVS. C.K.ANWAR K.S.SUMEESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 2STATIONHOUSEOFFICER VIYYURPOLICESTATION,VIYYUR, - THRISSURDISTRICT,PIN680010 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 3GEORGEAUGUSTINE AGED52YEARS S/OAUGUSTINE, ELUVATHINKALHOUSE,VYLOPILLINAGAR, 2NDSTREET,NELLANKARADESOM, OLLUKKARAVILLAGE,THRISSUR, - KERALA.,PIN680655 ``` ``` SMT.NEEMATV,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON31.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C. No. 1044/2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thrissur. In the aforesaid case, they are facing prosecution for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on September 7, 2021, at about 8:50 PM, the petitioners are alleged to have fisted the informant's face. It is further alleged that the 2nd petitioner, along with two other identifiable persons, took the party respondent to the 1st petitioner's premises and thereafter assaulted him. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the residence of the petitioners is situated within the limits of the Nettisserry Village in Thrissur Taluk, as is evident from Annexure-A3 Tax Receipts. According to the learned counsel, the place of occurrence is situated within the limits of the Mannuthy Police Station, and therefore, the Viyyur Police has no jurisdiction to investigate the aforesaid crime. The learned counsel would further point out that as against the informant in Crime No. 661/2021, Crime No. 826/2021 is booked for the offenses ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), and 325 of the IPC. However, the Investigating Officer took note of the fact that the Viyyur Police Station had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime and transferred the case for investigation to the Mannuthi Police, and thus the case was re-registered. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are also baseless and, prima facie, cannot be sustained under the law. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to section 156(2) of the Cr.P.C., and it is submitted that when an investigation has been commenced under Section 156 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the Sub Clause (2) ensures the same is not interrupted on the ground that the Police Officer was not empowered to investigate. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State Of Gujarat & Ors[1] ,** and it was argued that it is not within the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to refrain from holding a proper and complete investigation upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. > 1 (2010) 1 SCC 1 ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 6. The first contention of the petitioner is that the Station House Officer of the Viyyur Police Station has no jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations of Crime No. 661/2021, as, according to him, the incident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Mannuthi Police Station. The second contention is that the allegations in the final report do not disclose the offences alleged. 7. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the issue is covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Rasiklal** (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the law laid down in **Satvinder Kaur vs. State[2]** , had held that the powers vested in the Investigating Officer under Section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. do not restrict the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to investigate in a complaint even if it did not have territorial jurisdiction to do so. 8. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it is well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offense. In the exercise of > 2 (1999) 8 SCC 728 ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as **R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), **State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in **Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others** [2021 SCC Online SC 315]. 9. Upon careful examination of the available materials and evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offense has been established against the petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offences under ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning the genuinity of the allegations made by the witnesses and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court will not be justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced before court. It would be prudent for this court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage, so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioners have not made out any case for intervention at this stage. This petition is dismissed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5958OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5958/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` AnnexureA1CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIME661/2021 AnnexureA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCC 1044/2021 ``` ``` AnnexureA3TRUECOPYOFTHELANDTAXRECEIPTOFTHE1ST PETITIONER ``` ``` AnnexureA4TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRBEARINGNO.826/2021 DATED30.10.2021 AnnexureA5CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHESCENEMAHAZARDATED 13.09.2021 ```