IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15415 of 2007(I)
1. JOSEPH.P.M., S/O.MICHAEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15415 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January , 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner prayed for quashing the proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in S.T. 488/2007 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. The
Petitioner is accused in a petty case No. 70/2007 of the Mannarkkad Police
Station. Ext.P1 is the Charge sheet pertaining to an offence alleged to
have been committed by the petitioner punishable under Section 290 I.P.C
According to the petitioner there are some civil disputes between the
petitioner’s family and one Sri.Binoy Abraham who is a student.
According to the petitioner when the said Binoy Abraham continued to
commit mischief, he submitted a complaint before the 3rd respondent. In
stead of taking action on the complaint the 3rd respondent threatened the
petitioner to settle all the disputes with the said Binoy Abraham. Due to the
harassment of the 3rd respondent the petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint
before the higher officers in the Police Department, Ministers and the
Deputy Speaker. The petitioner contended that till date no action has
been taken by the Police. It is contended by the petitioner that the
offence alleged does not amount to public nuisance as defined under
Section 290 of the I.P.C. He also pointed out certain anomalies in Ext.P1
charge sheet.
W.P.(C) No.15415 of 2007 -2-
2. Ext.P3 is the reply given by the 3rd respondent. According to
the 3rd respondent he lodged the said charge for menace and loud
speaking in the police station by the petitioner with another person who is
the father of Sri.Binoy Abraham.
3. On the basis of the averments in the writ petition the petitioner
may be able to substantiate his contentions so that the prosecution may
end him in acquittal. The reasons stated by the petitioner are not enough
to quash the proceedings.
This writ petition is without any merits ;hence dismissed.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
es.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
—————————
W.P(C) No. 15415 of 2007
—————————-
JUDGMENT
20th January, 2009