IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1951 of 2009()
1. SURESHKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, SPECIAL GRADE, KUNDARA
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 1951 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 17th day of June,2009
ORDER
Petitioner filed this petition under section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure IV
F.I.R in Crime No.436/2009 of Kundara Police Station
contending that Annexure III complaint was lodged by
the Kundara Grama Panchayat out of political rivalry
and no offence is made out and therefore the F.I.R is
to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
there is no public well which was allegedly filled,as
stated in Annexure III complaint or Annexure IV F.I.R
and the case is registered malafide to harass the
petitioner out of the political reasons and there is no
material to show that there was a panachayat public
well which was filled up and therefore the F.I.R is to
be quashed.
4. Annexure IV F.I.R was registered based on
Annexure III complaint filed by the Secretary of
Crl.M.C.1951/2009 2
Kundara Grama Panchayat stating that on getting information
that a Panchayat well was trespassed and filled up by
persons under the leadership of the petitioner and on
inquiry it was found to be correct and therefore proper
action is to be taken.
5. The question is whether Annexure III complaint if
accepted as correct, an offence to be investigated is
made out.
6. The police has registered the case under section 447
of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act. In the light of Annexure
III complaint it is not possible to hold that the offence
alleged is not to be investigated. The question whether
the well was in existence and if so whether it was filled
up by the petitioner and if so whether petitioner committed
the offence are all matters to be investigated by the
Police. I find no reason to quash the First Information
Report at the threshold as sought for by the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006