Kerala High Court
Satheeshkumar vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1562/2023 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2024 IN SC NO.1730 OF 2023
OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SATHEESHKUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,
PULIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690519
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
JOSHNA JOY
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690521
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2024
2
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
This is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging order dated
26.02.204 in Crl.M.P.No.64/2024 in S.C.No.1730/2023 on the
files of the Special Court under the POCSO Act,
Karunagappally.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the available
materials, including the impugned order.
3. The grievance advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the order passed is a cryptic order,
without considering the contentions in the petition. It is also
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further
that, as per the police charge, offence under Section 3(2)(V)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2024
(POA) Act' for short) is alleged and the same in no way
attracts in this matter since no offence under the Indian Penal
Code, punishable for a period of ten years, involved in the
police charge.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor also conceded
such an anomaly is there in the police charge while justifying
other charges.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is much
aggrieved in the matter of allegation of commission of
offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, in a
case, no such foundation is made out. He also submitted that
an opportunity may be ensured for the accused to hear his
contention at the time of framing charge, so as to frame
charge for the offences which could be prima facie made out
from the records. This prayer is not opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor also.
6. Since the contention raised by the petitioner in the
matter of alleging commission of offence under Section 3(2)
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2024
(V) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is found to be prima facie
sustainable, while confirming the dismissal order in the
discharge petition, impugned herein, there shall be a
direction to the learned Special Judge to hear and consider
the arguments, at the instance of the counsel for the
petitioner, before framing charge and the learned Special
Judge is directed to frame charge only for the materials
which could be gathered, prima facie, from the charge and
ensure that the offence/s, if any, not made out from the
prosecution records shall be excluded while framing charge.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 492/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED
26.02.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.64/2024 IN
SC NO.1730/2023 ON THE FILE OF FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
ANNEXURE A2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
05.12.2023 IN CRIME NO.1562/2023 OF
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A3 THE COPY OF PETITION FOR DISCHARGE
FILED BY TEH REVISION PETITIONER AS
CRL.M.P.NO.64/2024 DATED 06.02.2024
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL
