This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-1 complaint filed against the petitioner before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, and Crime No.39/2009 of Kudiyanmala Police Station for offence u/s.342, 294(b), 506(ii) and 120B r/w 34 IPC against all accused and Sections 166, 167, 218 against 1st and 2nd accused and Section 109 IPC against accused 3 to 5, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The above complaint was filed by the 1st respondent, who is a practising lawyer at Thaliparamba. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kudiyanmala Police Station, compelled the 1st respondent to settle a case registered at the instance of the 1st respondent against some other accused persons. The investigation in the complaint was conducted and final report was submitted by the C.I. of Police, Alakkode before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, which is pending there. The above case was initially investigated by the ASI of Police and subsequently, further investigation was made by C.I. of Police, Alakkode. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate of Judicial First Class, Thaliparamba took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner mechanically without considering the relevant ingredients of the offences. There was no pleadings in the complaint to substantiate the criminal act committed by the petitioner. When no ingredients attracting the aforesaid offence were found in the complaint, the trial of the case is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this petition.
2. The 1st respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint alleging that on 28.3.2009 while he was travelling from Thaliparamba to Kudiyanmala in his Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KL 30 A 6561, when he reached at Oduvally, a motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner, by overtaking a bus, hit against the 1st respondent's vehicle. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. After the incident, the rider of the motorcycle, without stopping the motorcycle, had driven away from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, after the incident, when the 1st respondent returned to his house at 11.30 a.m. he found the alleged motorcycle involved in the incident and at that time while taking number of the motorcycle, accused 3, 4 and 5 assaulted him. As a result, he sustained injuries. Subsequently, on 2.4.2009 at 7 p.m., 2nd accused summoned the 1st respondent in the police station and recorded his statement. After that, the 1st accused/petitioner came there and took the 1st respondent and witnesses in his room and at that time, accused Nos.3 to 5 were also present there. The petitioner talked about the case and made a suggestion for settlement. Thereafter, the 2nd incident was occurred. For that, the 1st respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the investigation was conducted by the ASI of Police and he referred Section 324, 308, 394 and 506 r/w.34 IPC. Subsequently, he filed Annexure-2 report. Further investigation was conducted by the C.I. of Police, Alakkode.
The petitioner was on duty in another place at Kannavam Police Station in connection with the law and order situation as per the direction of the S.P., Kannur and therefore, the 1st respondent's allegation that the petitioner was on duty on the date of incident is false. If trial is proceeded with the aforesaid Annexure-1 complaint, it is a mere abuse of the process of Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other accused. If proceedings against the petitioner is quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction, it will affect the credibility of the remaining part of the case.
5. The inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the specific grounds made thereunder. According to Section 482, the High Court can invoke such inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court cannot ordinarily conduct an enquiry whether any evidence adduced is sufficient for a conviction or the evidence supporting the allegation is reliable or not. The only consideration that can be given at this stage is the satisfaction of the prima facie case. Apex Court in State of Haryana V.
Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] pointed out that:
“where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”.
6. I have considered the avements in Annexure-1 complaint. In Annexure-1 complaint, several allegations are made against the petitioner and other accused. It is true that the 1st respondent is a practising lawyer at Thaliparamba and he might have visited the Police Station in connection with the investigation in Crime No.39/2009. Annexure-2 is the report submitted by the ASI of Police, Kudiyanmala Police Station before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba by deleting the offences u/s. 506(ii), 324, 308, 394 of IPC. The remaining portion of the investigation was entrusted to C.I. of Police, Alakkode. No ingredients attracting offence u/s.166,167, 218 & 120B were furnished against the petitioner. If that be the position, prima facie case against the petitioner was not properly made out in the complaint. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I quash all the proceedings against the petitioner in Annexure-1 complaint. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of continuing the proceedings against the other accused.
Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observation.
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.