Kerala High Court
Rema vs State Of Kerala on 13 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3516 OF 2017
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1340/2015 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,
CHALAKUDY AS CC NO.1940 OF 2015.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AJITHA
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O.ANIYAN, PARAYIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, PAZHUKKARA
DESOM, ANNALLUR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY
POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 RAMA
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.GOPI, PUNARKKA VEETTIL
HOUSE, KODALI DESOM, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.AKHIL
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
ADV.SEENA C. GP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.06.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7839/2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 23RD JYAISHTA,
1946
CRL.MC NO. 7839 OF 2017
CRIME NO.1227/2015 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1939 OF 2015
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
REMA
W/O. GOPI, PUNARKKA VEEDU, KODALI DESOM,
MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.K.AKHIL
SMT.LITISHYA FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 AJITHA, AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. ANIYAN, PARAYILVALAPPIL VEEDU, PAZHUKKARA
DESOM, ANNALLUR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY THALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 731.
BY ADV.SRI.N.L.BITTO
ADV.SEENA C.- GP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.06.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3516/2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2024
ORDER
These Crl.M.Cs. are disposed of by this common
order since the proceedings sought to be quashed are
criminal cases relating to the same incident; a case and a
counter case. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3516/2017 is
referred to as the petitioner, and the petitioner in
Crl.M.C. No.7839/2017 is referred to as the 2 nd respondent
hereafter.
Crl.M.C. No.3516/2017:
2. On the basis of a complaint of the 2nd respondent
Crime No.1340/2015 was registered at the Chalakudy Police
Station. After investigation, the final report was filed (a copy
of which is Annexure A6) charging the petitioner with the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 294(b) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The petitioner would contend that the proceedings
in C.C. No.1940/2015 which was instituted based on
Annexure A6 report is liable to be quashed on the grounds of
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
delay, absence of any injury to the 2 nd respondent,
irregularity in the investigation and impropriety in the
investigation, inasmuch as a different police officer has
conducted an investigation in the case than the officer who
investigated into the counter case.
Crl.M.C. No.7839/2017:
4. Crime No.1227/2015 was registered at the
Chalakudy Police Station on the basis of the FI statement
recorded by the defacto complainant, who is the petitioner in
Crl.M.C. No.3516/2017. After investigation, a final report
was filed charging the petitioner in this case (2 nd respondent)
with offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the
Indian Penal Code. A copy of the final report is Annexure 1
herein. The 2nd respondent seeks to quash the said final
report and C.C. No.1939/2015 instituted thereon on the
grounds that the allegations in the final report would not
constitute the alleged offences and the proceedings would be
an abuse of the process of the court.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the learned Public
Prosecutor.
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
6. The fact that an incident of altercation and
physical assault involving the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent is not in dispute. While the petitioner contends
that as a counterblast to the initiation of prosecution against
the 2nd respondent she lodged a complaint after 14 days,
and she did not sustain any injury. Her intention was only to
compel the petitioner to settle the prosecution against her.
7. It is true that the crime, which resulted in
charging the petitioner, was registered after 14 days of the
incident only. A copy of the accident-registered cum wound
certificate concerning the 2nd respondent is made available
for my perusal. From this, it is seen that the 2 nd respondent
had an abrasion on her left elbow and also inflammation on
the left shoulder. She was examined by the doctor at 4.55
p.m. on 05.06.2015 on which date the incident was
occurred. From that it is seen that the 2 nd respondent had
injuries, though minor in nature. It is seen from the records
that the petitioner was also examined by the Doctor on the
same day following the incident and she had bodily
infirmities.
8. The allegations in both cases are almost similar.
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
The incident occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 05.06.2015.
The petitioner is a practicing lawyer, and the 2nd respondent
is a typist. Their offices are adjoining rooms in the same
building. In relation to clearing of cobwebs in the premises
the altercation occurred, and that eventuate in a violent end.
While the petitioner alleges that it was the 2nd respondent
who perpetrated the offence of hurt, the 2nd respondent
alleges that it was the other way around.
9. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent
underwent treatment, and both of them had bodily
infirmities, although minor in nature. It is not able to reach a
logical finding as to who was the aggressor. The contention
that the recovery of broom was affected in both cases and
that itself creates doubt about the prosecution against the
petitioner is not able to be accepted since apparently,
different brooms were recorded. Similar is the contention
regarding the investigation by different officers in the cases.
There is no law insisting that a case and counter-case should
be investigated by the same officer. But propriety requires
so. The question then is one of prejudice. That can be
decided only on recording evidence and not now. Similar is
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
in the case of the delay occasioned in registering the crime
against the petitioner. Whether on account of the delay any
prejudice is caused to the petitioner and the prosecution
would fail can be decided only after recording evidence. In
the complaint lodged by the 2 nd respondent, reasons for the
delay is stated. Whether that is acceptable or not is a
question to be decided after trial.
10. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that
the contentions set forth by the learned counsel in support of
their plea to quash the respective proceedings are unable to
be accepted.
11. Priyanka Mishra v State of Uttar pradesh [2003
SCC Online SC 978] the Apex Court held that persons are to
be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal
prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the
rigours of an eventual trial. The Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar
Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 Live Law (SC) 1019]
held that the protection against vexatious and unwanted
prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a
trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion in the
deserving cases is a duty cast on the High Courts. If a trial in
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
a criminal prosecution would ultimately be a futile exercise,
and the abuse of process of law the proceedings can be
quashed. But from the discussion made above, I am unable
to hold that the trial in the present cases would be an abuse
of process of the court. A trial is required to find out who
was the aggressor and who voluntarily caused hurt. In the
circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
SMF
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR FILED BY THE
CHALAKUDY POLICE DATED 5-6-2015.
ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
IN CRIME NO.1227 OF 2015 OF THE
CHALAKUDY POLICE DATED 20-6-2015.
ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE IS
PRODUCED AS FROM TALUK HOSPITAL
CHALAKUDY DATED 5-6-2015.
ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER
SHOWING THE ALLEGED INJURY.
ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY FIR IN CRIME NO.1340 OF
2015 DATED 19-6-2015 REGISTERED BY
THE CHALAKUDY POLICE.
ANNEXURE 6 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1340 OF 2015 DATED 30-6-2015
REGISTERED BY THE CHALAKUDY POLICE.
Crl. M.C. Nos.3516 & 7839 of 2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO. 1939/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO. 1940/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY.
