Crl.MC.5465/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.5465 OF 2020(C)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 766/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM
CRIME NO.315/2018 OF Kilikolloor Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
ROBINDAS
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O YESUDASAN, PILLAVEEDU, SANGHAM MUKKU,
KANDACHIRA, MANGAD VILLAGE, KILLIKOLLOOR, MANGAD
P.O.KOLLAM-691 015.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SRI.K.C.HARISH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.5465/2020 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No. 5465 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2021
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.315 of 2018 of Kilikolloor Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, now pending as C.C.No.766 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. The prosecution allegation is that by about 2 p.m on 8.5.2018, the petitioner was found in front of Kilikolloor Police Station, in an inebriated and quarrelsome condition, which was likely to cause breach of peace. The petitioner seeks to get the further proceedings in the case against him quashed primarily on the ground that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, the alleged offence was not made out.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in order to attract the offence under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, the accused should have been in a public place and in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself. Referring to Annexure II final report, it is contended that the allegation is only of petitioner being found in a quarrelsome condition, unable to Crl.MC.5465/2020 3 stand on his own and using abusive language. It is submitted that the definition of the term 'rioting' not being available under the Kerala Police Act, the definition provided under Section 146 of IPC ought to be adopted. It is further contended that, unless blood test is conducted and the alcohol content in the blood found to be in excess of the permitted level, a person cannot be held to be in an intoxicated condition. It is pointed out that even going by the prosecution case, only breath analyzer test was conducted, for which also there is no documentary evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been advised for appointment as Police Constable and was not sent for training on account of his implication in the criminal case.
3. I find substantial force in the contentions urged by the learned counsel. A vague allegation of the petitioner being found in a quarrelsome condition will not attract the offence under Section 118(a). There is essential difference between quarrelsome and rioting conditions. Further, there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner was in an intoxicated condition, except the statement that he was unable to stand on his own. Hence, further proceedings in the case based on such unsubstantiated and vague allegations amount to an abuse of process of court.
Crl.MC.5465/2020 4
In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C.No.766 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE vgs Crl.MC.5465/2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 PHOTOCOPY OF F.I.R. DATED 8.5.2018 IN CRIME NO 315/2018 OF KILIKKOOLLOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 11 PHOTOCOPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 21.5.2018 IN CRIME NO 315/2018 OF KILIKKOOLLOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 111 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.7.2019 ISSUED BY COMMANDANT(IC) KERALA ARMED POLICE-V, IDUKKI BY WHICH HE WAS RETRENCHED FROM SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM 12.6.2019