IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3066 of 2009()
1. MUHAMMED @ MANU,
... Petitioner
2. MUHAMMED SHERIF,
3. NAJEEB, S/O.UMMERKUTTY HAJI,
4. KUNHAYAMMU, S/O.UMMERKUTTY HAJI,
5. MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ KUNHAN,
6. SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABU HAJI,
7. KUNHAYAMMU @ CHERIYON,
8. KUNHAMMU, S/O.UNNEENKUTTY,
9. INTHIYAS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3066 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are counter petitioners in M.C.No.
38/2009 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Ottapalam, initiated under Section 107 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A1 order was passed
under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure
stating that Sub Divisional Magistrate is satisfied
by the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Nattukal
that petitioners are creating a tense situation and
there is likelihood of further clashes and
disturbance to the public living in the area and
hence, petitioners are directed to execute a bond,
for keeping peace and public tranquility in the
area, worth Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand
only) with two sureties for the like sum and to
appear before the court on 5.8.2009 and show cause
why they shall not execute the bond. This petition
is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
CRMC 3066/09 2
Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that
continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of
process of the court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Though action was taken under Section 107 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, based on the report of
Sub Inspector of Police, Nattukal, it is clear from
Annexure-A1 order that the allegations against
petitioners were that they are involved in Crime
Nos.87/2009 and 92/2009 of Nattukal Police Station
and Crime No.259/2009 of Mannarkad Police Station.
Copy of FIR in Crime No.87/2009 made available by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
shows that the case was registered on 3.5.2009
based on the F.I. Statement of the brother of the
deceased father of the petitioners. The allegation
is that on 29.4.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused
therein trespassed into the rubber estate of the
first informant and committed theft of rubber
CRMC 3066/09 3
sheets and thereby committed the offences under
Sections 447, 506(1) and 379 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code. FIR in Crime No.259/2009 made
available shows that that case was also registered
based on the F.I. Statement of the same person,
wherein, it is alleged that on the morning at 6.30
a.m. of 29.4.2009, petitioners trespassed into
another estate of the first informant and committed
theft of latex and thereby committed offences under
Sections 447, 506(1) and 379 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code. FIR in Crime No.92/2009 made
available shows that that case was registered on
11.5.2009, based on a private complaint filed
before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Mannarkad by the son of the first informant in the
other cases, against petitioners 2, 4, 7 and 8
alleging that they committed offences under
Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code by assaulting the son of the first
informant in other cases on 23.11.2008. C.M.P.
CRMC 3066/09 4
No.995/2009, which was sent for investigation, was
filed before the learned Magistrate only on
5.5.2009, though the alleged incident occurred on
23.11.2008.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
apart from these three cases, there was no other
case of breach of peace committed by petitioners.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, it is clear that
action was taken because of the pendency of the
civil dispute between the petitioners and the first
informant and his son in Crime Nos.87/2009 and
259/2009. The dispute is with regard to the
property left behind by the father of the first
informant in Crime No.87/2009 and petitioners, who
are the children of the pre-deceased brother of the
first informant. In the nature of the allegations
and taking into account the fact that Crime Nos.
87/2009 and 259/2009 were in respect of an incident
occurred on the morning and night of 29.4.2009 and
CRMC 3066/09 5
Crime No.92/2009 was in respect of an alleged
incident which took place on 23.11.2008, but
complaint was lodged only on 11.5.2009, it is clear
that facts and circumstances of the case do not
warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 107
of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such
circumstances, the proceedings is to be quashed.
Petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 order and M.C.
No.38/2009 on the file of Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Ottapalam are quashed.
2nd November, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv