Judgment · High Court

CRMC.NO.3322/2012APPENDIXPETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:ANNEX A1COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.550/2012 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATIONANNEX A2COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.550/12 OF THE CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNURANNEX A3COPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED BY THE MILITARY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3/10/2012ANNEX A4COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.550/2012 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATIONANNEX A5COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS OF CHARGE WITNESSESRESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A.TO.JUDGEsts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.3322 OF 2012-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of November, 2012ORDERPetitioner is one among the accused in a crime registered at Chokli Police Station in which after investigation final report hasbeen filed indicting the accused persons for offences punishableunder Sections 143, 17 and 447 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, for short, 'KP Act'.Petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code' seeking forquashing the criminal proceedings against him contending that itis an abuse of process of the court.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thematerials covered by Annexure A2 report filed under Section173(2) of the Code before the magistrate do not disclose of theingredients of any of the offences imputed against the accused Crl.M.C No.3322/20122persons and, as such, his prosecution for the offences alleged isnot warranted. He has already been selected for appointment toa post in the Indian military, is also canvassed by the counsel tourge for invoking the exercise of inherent powers of this court forquashing the criminal proceedings against him. Annexure A2report would disclose that the allegation is that the petitioner andsome others as members of an unlawful assembly criminallytrespassed upon the police station compound and shouted someslogans and also made some threatening statements to the policepersonnel on the night of 01-07-2012. A few minutes earlier, some police personnel attached to that police station, during theirpatrol duty, instructed some of the associates of the petitionerand others, who were found loitering in and around the town, toleave the place and to go to their homes, is stated to have givenrise to the protest from the accused persons named, who arestated to be members of an organisation.

No doubt, if we go bythe materials produced by the police, the conduct of the Crl.M.C No.3322/20123petitioner and others imputed against is condemnable, but, thelarger question to be looked into is whether such materials giverise to prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section117(e) of the KP Act. Other than a statement made that therewas a threat from one or other persons in the assembly consistingof the petitioner that the police personnel would not be permittedto discharge their duties outside the police station there isnothing more in the records to intimate that there was anyobstruction to the discharge of duties or threat preventing themfrom discharging such duties as police men. Offence under Section 117(e) of the KP Act contemplates punishment extendingupto three years is also required to be taken note of with respectto the allegations imputed. That circumstance has to be takeninto account in examining whether prosecution of the petitionersis called for.

Going through the 161 statements of policepersonnel, produced as Annexure A5, it is seen, no particularsare furnished as to who among the members constituting the Crl.M.C No.3322/20124unlawful assembly made the threat or intimidation. So much so, even if the prosecution is continued, there is remote chance ofsuch prosecution leading to conviction of any of the accusedperson on the vague allegation raised that one among themembers of the unlawful assembly made such a threat. Added tothis circumstance the plea canvassed by the counsel that thepetitioner is on the verge of securing an appointment alsodeserves to be taken note of in considering the exercise of theinherent powers of this court canvassed for to quash the criminalproceedings against him. Pendency of the criminal case is likelyto cause a serious impediment to the petitioner in securing theappointment. After trial if he is found not guilty and acquitted, that would not enable him to get back the appointment.