Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2733 of 2012 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, involved in an offence under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The allegation is that on 31.12.2012 at 10.45 a.m., petitioner threatened the Sub Inspector of Police that the former would see that the latter is dismissed from service. He picked up a quarrel with the Police Officer while he was discharging his duty in connection with a petition enquiry. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioner is guilty under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Case of the petitioner is that in his neighbourhood, there lived an old lady, aged about 80 years. She had been abandoned by her family members. Local people used to give food and help to this old lady. A mass petition was filed by the local inhabitants before Police narrating the sad plight of the lady. It is contended that she was residing in a house situated in a large property. Her children are quite well-off. It is also alleged that nobody cared to look after the old lady. In connection with that matter, Police called CWs 1 and 2 (witnesses 1 and 2 shown in Annexure-A final report) to the Station. When a talk was going on, there arose some dispute and it is the prosecution case that the petitioner shouted at the Sub Inspector of Police and threatened that he would cause the S.I. to be dismissed from service. Petitioner's case is that at the instance of CWs 1 and 2, he was taken to Police custody and brutally manhandled. Annexure- B is the medical records produced to show that after arrest and release on bail, the petitioner was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur with a complaint that he was assaulted in custody. Annexure-C is the medical certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur showing that he was conservatively treated with medicines. Annexure-D is the statement given by the petitioner before the Magistrate alleging that he was physically assaulted by Police Officer in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case in Annexure-A final report is false and made to wriggle out of the predicament in which the Police Officer was placed. On going through the final report, I find that grand daughter (CW1) of the old lady and her husband (CW2) are the only witnesses in the final report along with some Police Officers. The complaint raised by people against CWs 1 and 2 will fall within the scope of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short, “the Act”). That is an Act to provide for effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the term 'children', which includes son, daughter, grand son and grand daughter, but does not include a minor. Section 24 of the Act deals with punishment for exposure and abandonment of senior citizens. It says that whoever, having the care or protection of senior citizens, leaves such senior citizens in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to Rupees five thousand or with both. Section 25 of the Act makes it clear that the offence is cognizable and bailable. The report submitted by the Police Officer in this case shows that he called the parties involved in the complaint about abandonment of old lady to the Police Station and in the course of discussion, the petitioner shouted at him and threatened as stated above. It is nowhere stated in the report if he had registered any complaint for the abandonment of a senior citizen, aged 80 years, who is completely helpless and hapless. Reckoning the entire facts and circumstances borne out from the final report and other documents produced, I am of the view that the petitioner's case that the Police Officer without any justification registered a case against him is highly probable. I also find that the prosecution of the case against the petitioner with the allegations as seen in Annexure-A final report is an abuse of the process of court. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report in Crime No.2733 of 2012 of Irinjalakuda Police Station pending in C.C.No.624 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda is hereby quashed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks