Kerala High Court
A.K.Baburaj vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:87803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 9574 OF 2024
CRIME NO.756/2016 OF Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.739 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
A.K.BABURAJ
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KOCHAPPAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. 21/616, ATTUVALLIL,
PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY P.O., COCHIN, PIN - 682006
BY ADVS.
S.SABARINADH
A.JAYASANKAR
MANU GOVIND
RESPONDENTS/PROSECUTION:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALAPPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), CHERTHALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
CRL.MC NO. 9574 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:87803
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9574 OF 2024 3
2024:KER:87803
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.9574 of 2024
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.739/2017 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, arising out of Crime
No.756/2016 of Aroor Police Station, Kannur.
2. According to the prosecution the accused had on 15.09.2016,
while driving a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-08-AF-6256 in a rash and
negligent manner, collided with a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-43-
E-5000 driven by the deceased and thereafter collided with another motor
cycle driven by the defacto complainant. The driver of the vehicle bearing
Registration No.KL-43-E-5000 succumbed to injuries and the accused
committed the offences alleged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
prosecution allegations are totally false and the incident did not occur as
alleged. According to him the negligence was that of the deceased and not
that of the petitioner's. It was further submitted that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police who had verified the records pursuant to the
complaint of the petitioner had categorically observed in Annexure A4 that the
negligence was that of the deceased who had taken a 'U' turn without care.
Despite the above, when a further investigation was conducted, pursuant to
the said directions, the investigating officer again came to the earlier
conclusion itself that it was the petitioner who was negligent. The learned
2024:KER:87803
counsel further contended that, the entire materials produced by the
prosecution will indicate that, the negligence ought to have been attributed to
the deceased and not to the petitioner and hence, the proceedings ought to be
quashed.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, in the final report
the investigating officer had specifically adverted to the noting of the Dy.S.P
and concluded that negligence has to be attributed to the petitioner and that
the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
5. I have considered the rival contentions.
6. The petitioner is facing a prosecution for offence including Section
304A of IPC. Rash and negligent driving is attributed to the petitioner. The
contention now raised is that the incident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the deceased and not that of the petitioner. This Court is
called upon by the petitioner to sift through the materials collected by the
prosecution and arrive at a conclusion that negligence ought to have been
attributed to the deceased and not to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] to contend that the
inherent powers can be used to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of
process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. No doubt the
powers of this Court under Section 482 can be utilized to prevent the abuse of
process of court. However, the said power cannot be utilized to come to a
conclusion on a question that requires appreciation of evidence and a finding
of facts. Hence the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is legally
2024:KER:87803
untenable.
8. In the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan
Singh etc. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 379], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this court is not
called upon to conduct a mini trial and nor can it sift through the materials to
arrival at a conclusion one way or other. Apart from the above, in a decision of
Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Others [(2023) 3 SCC 317], it has been
held that, the defense of the accused however possible it may be, cannot be a
reason to quash the proceedings. The defense of the accused has to be
established in a proper trial and the same cannot be utilized at the stage of a
proceeding under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 to quash the proceedings.
In view of the above, I find no merit in this Crl.MC and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJ
2024:KER:87803
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VEHICLE MAHAZAR PREPARED
BY SRI. P.V. UDAYAN, ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE AROOR POLICE STATION & THE INSPECTION
REPORT BY AMVI DETAILING THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED TO
PETITIONER'S VEHICLE [MOTOR CAR-TOYOTA COROLLA
(2005 MODEL) BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-08-AF-
6256]
Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 756/2016 OF AROOR POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.11.2016
LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
Annexure A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT NO. 6559/P3-
284/2016/SSD ON 31.12.2016 OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 27.03.2017 IS PRODUCED WITH THE
ENCLOSURES
Annexure A5 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
756/2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT II, CHERTHALA ON 12.04.2017
Annexure A6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.04.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA
Annexure A7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VEHICLE MAHAZAR PREPARED
BY SRI. P.V. UDAYAN, ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE AROOR POLICE STATION & THE INSPECTION
REPORT BY AMVI DETAILING THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED TO
MOTORBIKE-YAMAHA LIBERO (2003 MODEL) BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. KL-04-P-8299] RODE BY SRI.
SUDHEESH
Annexure A8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
DETAILING THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED TO MOTORBIKE-ROYAL
2024:KER:87803
ENFIELD BULLET 500CC (2016 MODEL) BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. KL-43-E-5000 RODE BY SRI. SARATH
KUMAR
Annexure A9 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.10.2024 IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINT NO. 1799 OF 2018 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A10 A CERTIFIED COPY OF SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FILED BY
SHO OF KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION
