Vinod Kumar B vs Chengaledam Narayanan Unni
2021 Latest Caselaw 10193 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    Crl.MC.No.6207 OF 2018(E)

      CRIME NO.829/2018 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

      1      VINOD KUMAR B, AGED 45 YEARS,
             S/o BHASKARAN, ELANJIKKAL PUTHENPURA, PIRAVOM KARA,
             PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM

      2      SUNEESH BHASKAR, AGED 33 YEARS,
             S/o BHASKARAN, ELANJIKKAL PUTHENPURA, PIRAVOM KARA,
             PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM

      3      RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
             S/o GOPINATHAN NAIR, ELANJIKKAL PUTHENPURA,
             PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE,
             MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM

      4      BABU M.R, AGED 48 YEARS,
             S/o RAJAPPAN NAIR, MEDAMANA HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA,
             PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

      5      BALACHANDRAN M R, AGED 50 YEARS,
             S/o RAJAPPAN NAIR, MEDAMANA HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA,
             PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

             BY ADVS.SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
                     SRI.ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      CHENGALEDAM NARAYANAN UNNI,
             CHENGALEDATH MADOM, PIRAVOM P.O, PIN 686664

      2      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031.

             R1 BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL
                         SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
                         SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
             R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C.BINEESH


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.6207 of 2018                2




                                 ORDER

In connection with the temple renovation, the main

deity and other deities were transferred and installed

in a temporary structure (balalayam) and renovation

works were started. It is at that juncture, the first

respondent approached the Division Bench of this Court

with a claim over the property. By Annexure C judgment,

the Division Bench rejected the application reserving

the right of first respondent to agitate the issue

through a civil court. It is a temple held and

administered by Travancore Devaswom Board. Though, a

suit for injunction was instituted by the first

respondent, the Devaswom Board was not made as a party,

but obtained injunction only against the temple

committee members. Thereafter, at his instance, FIR

was registered, against which the committee members,

the accused, came up to quash the same.

2. The Station House Officer who registered the

crime for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 447,

294(b), 506(1) and 188 r/w Section 149 IPC did not

understand the issue involved in the case. It is so

unfortunate that a crime was registered for the

abovesaid offences at the instance of first respondent

with respect to a temple held and possessed by

Travancore Devaswom Board against the temple committee

members recognized and accepted by the Travancore

Devaswom Board. This would prima facie show the manner

in which the crime was registered, that too, without

any valid reason.

3. If there is any violation of the order of

injunction, it has to be dealt with under Order 39 Rule

2-A C.P.C. by the court which issued the order of

injunction. The Station House Officer or any police

official cannot register a crime merely on the ground

of violation of order of injunction issued by a

competent court without the intervention of the court

which passed the order. The very fact that the crime

was registered alleging criminal trespass against the

committee members recognized by the Devaswom Board with

respect to a temple run and administered by Devaswom

Board itself would show what is behind it. Ornamental

inclusions were also made alleging offence under

Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 506(1), 188 r/w Section 149

IPC so as to effectuate the allegation of offence of

criminal trespass and thereby the police officer, who

registered the crime, has misused his official power

and authority. For securing the ends of justice, the

FIR and its further proceedings are hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

                                           P.SOMARAJAN

DMR/-                                         JUDGE




                              APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A                CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01-09-2018

IN CRIME 829/2018 OF THE PIRAVOM POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH HIS SISTERS DATED 30-08-2018 BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM.

ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-05-2018 IN DBP NO. 92/2017

ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-08-2018 PASSED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

ANNEXURE E A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THRIKKARIYOOR GROUP OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

ANNEXURE F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-06-2018 IN I.A NO. 1534/2018 IN O.S NO. 295/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

ANNEXURE G A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22-11-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:      NIL

                                                   // TRUE COPY    //



                                                    P.A. TO JUDGE