Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.BABU, S/O.KUMARAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.BABU, S/O.KUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1195 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 10380 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1195 of 2005()

1. P.K.BABU, S/O.KUMARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.Nos.1195 of 2005 & 975 of 2007

Dated this the 15th day of June 2007

O R D E R

The common petitioner in these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases has come before this court aggrieved by the registration of a crime and the later filing of final report in that crime. Altogether, there are five accused persons in the crime. The crime was initially registered against accused 1 to 3 only. That crime was registered as Crime No.1/05 of Cheranellor police station. The alleged incident took place on the night of 31/12/2004. A tempo van was intercepted and 175 litres of spirit were recovered from the said van. Accused 1 to 3, who were present in the van, were arrested. They were produced before the learned Magistrate on 01/01/2005. As a follow-up measure after questioning the accused, 115 litres of spirit were recovered from the house of the first accused. The godown and toddy shops of the petitioner/fifth accused were searched. But there was no recovery of any contraband article of any sort. On 19/01/2005, the fifth accused, that is the petitioner herein, was Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 2 arrested. The petitioner came to this court with Crl.M.C.No. 1195/2005 to quash the F.I.R registered. Interim stay was granted. Investigation continued and after taking the permission of the court, final report was filed by the investigating officer. And thereafter, the present case C.P.No.2/07 was registered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Ernakulam on the basis of that final report. The petitioner has come before this court with Crl.M.C.No.975/07 to quash the said final report.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and that the allegations have been raised against the petitioner at the instance of a rival contractor, who wanted to ensure that the crime is registered against the petitioner so that he could virtually be deprived of the opportunity to participate in the later auctions and bid as a licensee. It was his contention that the rival was attempting to get the licenses issued in the name of the petitioner cancelled. The investigating officer is only acting hand in glove with such contractor and the entire proceedings initiated are malafide. At any rate, the registration of the F.I.R and filing of the chargesheet are all totally unjustifiable and not supported by any materials. This, in short, is the plea. Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 3

3. A rival contractor by name K.A.Sudhakaran has filed Crl.M.A.No.1443/07 to get himself impleaded in Crl.M.C.No.1195/05. That application was not opposed and it was agreed that he can also help this court to properly dispose of the case by making submissions. Accordingly, he was also permitted to be heard in the matter.

4. After the discussions at the Bar, it is agreed at all hands that Crl.M.C.No.1195/05 can now be dismissed as infructuous. The F.I.R registered has now culminated in the final report. Crl.M.C.No.1195/05 is accordingly dismissed as unnecessary now.

5. Now we come to Crl.M.C.No.975/2007. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to explain to the court the material, if any, on the basis of which the petitioner/fifth accused is sought to be arrayed as an accused along with the co-accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that except the statements given by C.Ws.20 and 21 and the alleged confession statements of the co-accused, there is no material on which the prosecution can request this court to sustain the allegations against the petitioner/fifth accused. Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 4

6. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this court. Such jurisdiction has to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases that too only in aid of justice. The mere fact that the petitioner will be entitled for discharge/acquittal at later stages of the trial is by itself not a satisfactory reason to justify the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that it is for the petitioner to appear before the courts concerned and raise his plea of discharge under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to so appear and advance his contentions. He only prays that unnecessary personal appearance of the petitioner on all dates of posting may not be insisted. He further submits that in the light of the facts of this case, this court may be pleased to direct that the petitioner shall not be visited with any adverse consequences regarding his business on account of the registration of crime No.1/05 of Cheranalloor police station and the subsequent filing of the final report in that crime. That request also, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does appear to me to be eminently reasonable. I shall carefully not advert to the factual disputes raised lest it should affect the interests of the parties adversely. Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 5

7. In the resutl:

i) Crl.M.C.No.1195/2005 is dismissed as unnecessary. ii) Crl.M.C.No.975/07 is dismissed but subject to the observations that the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim discharge at the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. Iii) It is further directed that until a decision on the question of charge is taken by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner shall not be subjected to any adverse consequences on the ground that such a case has been initiated/charge sheeted against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall commit the case, as expeditiously as possible and the learned Sessions Judge shall take an appropriate decision on the question of framing charge, as expeditiously as possible. Personal appearance of the petitioner need not be insisted until and if the court decides that the charges are liable to be framed unless such personal presence be absolutely essential for the further progress of the case. The petitioner shall be permitted to appear through counsel on all such days.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 6 Crl.M.C.Nos.1195/05 & 975/07 7

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.