Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025
Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025
- 1 -
2025:KER:30790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025/17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO.898 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1278/2024 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN
C.M.P.NO.9/2025 IN SC NO.1307 OF 2024 OF FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT-II, MANJERI
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN, CHEROTTA KUNNUMMEL HOUSE,
PAYYANAD, AMBALAPPADI,
MALAPPURAM (DIST.), PIN - 676122
BY ADVS.
ANIL K.MUHAMED
KRISHNAKUMAR G.
AJIN SALAM
MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.898 of 2025
- 2 -
2025:KER:30790
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.
No.1307/2024 pending before the Fast Track Special
Court-II, Manjeri. He is aggrieved by Annexure-3
Order, which refused an application under Section 91
Cr.P.C to call for the General Diary of the case and
the weekly report of the Inspector of Police. The
trial court found that the General Diary will contain
confidential information pertaining to other cases.
Besides, it was also found that if the General Diary
is directed to be produced in order to tally the time
at which the Mahazars etc. are prepared, the same
will have to be done in every case. It is also found
that the tour programme of the C.P.Os and patrolling
have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
Stating so, the petition was dismissed.
- 3 -
2025:KER:30790
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite
my attention to the judgments of this Court in Shiju
P.T v. State of Kerala [2016 (4) KLT 367]; an
unreported judgment of another learned Single Judge
in Crl.M.C.No.3880/2024; and also, the judgment of
this Court in Hariharan P.K. v. State of Kerala and
Another [2010 KHC 648], to contend that a Police
Diary is different from the General Diary. The
General Diary is maintained in terms of Section 12 of
the Police Act and the distinction has been noted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamshul Kanwar v. State
of U.P [1995 (4) SCC 430]. These judgments would go
to show that a General Diary can be summoned at the
instance of the accused, in contradistinction with a
Police Diary, which can only be perused by the Court,
- 4 -
2025:KER:30790
not for the purpose of evidence, but for the purpose
of aiding or assisting the trial. According to the
learned counsel, the impugned Order warrants
interference.
4. To a specific query put by this Court as to
whether this right is liable to be enforced only at
the stage of 233 Cr.P.C, the answer given by the
counsel for the petitioner is that the witnesses may
have to be recalled, if this right is to be exercised
at that stage. On merits, it is pointed out that, the
F.I.R was registered on 25.04.2024, before which
date, another complaint was preferred by the defacto
complainant, wherein allegations of sexual assault is
not there. If the General Diary is called for, the
existence of that written complaint can be brought
into light. Similarly, weekly report is sought for,
for the reason that it contains the details of the
- 5 -
2025:KER:30790
places where the Investigating Officer had travelled,
including his vehicle number. According to the
learned counsel, the Mahazars etc. prepared in the
instant case, were not done at the time at which it
is stated in the Mahazar, which fact also can be
brought out by producing the weekly report. On the
question of privacy with respect to the details of
other cases, if any, it is the suggestion of the
learned counsel that the General Diary and the weekly
report can be produced before the learned Sessions
Judge; and if it contains the details of any other
case, where the identity is supposed to be protected,
such entries can be masked and given to the
petitioner/accused.
5. This application was seriously opposed by the
learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that
the petitioner/accused has no vested right to obtain
- 6 -
2025:KER:30790
copies of these documents, which are essentially
maintained by the department officials as part of
their job.
6. The judgments in Shiju P.T (supra) and Crl.M.C.
No.3880/2024 are eloquent as regards the right of an
accused to summon the General Diary. A perusal of
paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Shiju P.T (supra)
would make it clear that the General Diary, which is
maintained in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act
is different from Police Diary. Police Diary is
maintained as per Section 172 of the Code. Imbibing
the larger role of a Court to unearth the truth in
every crime, a right to call for the General Diary
has been recognised in these judgments, wherein,
reliance is also seen placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamshul Kanwar (supra).
Therefore, the reasons, which weighed with the
- 7 -
2025:KER:30790
learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the petitioner's
application under Section 91 Cr.P.C, may not be
sustainable.
7. However, this Court notice that the case is only
at the stage of Section 231 Cr.P.C and the same
stands posted to 23.04.2025 for prosecution evidence.
A clear right is seen conferred upon the accused,
while entering upon defense in terms of Section 233
Cr.P.C to compel the attendance of any witness, or
for that matter, the production of any document or
thing. Such an application is liable to be allowed,
unless the Judge, for reasons to be recorded,
considers that such application is made for the
purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the
ends of justice. In Shiju P.T (supra) in paragraph
no.15, it has been observed that this right under
Section 233 is an important right in the hands of the
- 8 -
2025:KER:30790
defence and the same cannot be refused, except for
the specific reasons mentioned in Section 233.
Needless to say that, in view of the binding
precedents above referred, the right of the
petitioner/accused to summon the General Diary cannot
be negated. However, it is not proper or legal to
summon those documents at the stage of Section 231
Cr.P.C. This Court notice that in Shiju P.T (supra)
and in Crl.M.C.No.3880/2024, both, the right is
sought to be enforced only at the stage of Section
233 Cr.P.C. There cannot be any quarrel that these
documents are required only in support of the defence
case; and not in anyway connected to the prosecution
case, in respect of which evidence is supposed to be
adduced at the stage of Section 231 Cr.P.C. If that
be so, it will be more appropriate, legal and proper
to relegate the petitioner/accused to exercise his
right to summon these documents at the stage of the
- 9 -
2025:KER:30790
defence evidence to be adduced in terms of Section
233 Cr.P.C. Such right is reserved.
8. In view of the above findings, the impugned
Order does not warrant any interference as of now,
although the reasons for the findings therein cannot
be sustained.
9. This Crl.M.C will stand disposed of as above,
relegating the right of the petitioner/accused to
summon the documents in terms of Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Such application, if any, filed by the petitioner/
accused will be decided by the learned Sessions Judge
in accordance with law, and also, in the light of the
findings contained in this Order.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 10 -
2025:KER:30790
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CRL. M.P.NO. 09 OF
2025 IN S.C.NO. 1307 OF 2024 DATED 08/
ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION DATED
08/01 2025 IN CRL. M.P.NO.09 OF 2025
IN S.C.NO.1307 OF 2024
ANNEXURE 3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/
01/2025 IN CRL.M.P.NO.09 OF 2025 IN
S.C.NO. 1307 OF 2024
