IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4892 of 2010()
1. PRATHYUMNAN, HEAD CONSTABLE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SHAJI.K., CF-2227, H.Q.COMPANY,
4. THE COMMANDENT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.VIMALAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4892 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 31st day of January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1034 of 2010 of
Peroorkada Police Station for offences punishable under Sec. 294
(b), 325 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered
on the complaint of respondent No.3. It is contended by learned
counsel that petitioner is exonerated in the departmental enquiry
and that no offence is made out against petitioner. According to
the learned counsel, petitioner was suspended from service while
Annexure-7 would show that person accused of more serious
offences was not suspended.
2. Petitioner is the Head Constable of S.A.P Camp,
Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent No.3 is an employee of that
camp. According to respondent No.3, he was summoned to the
office of the petitioner on 01.11.2010 and petitioner used abusive
words against him. Petitioner tried to assault him with a chair.
Thereafter, petitioner pushed out respondent No.3 from the office
and the latter fell down and suffered fracture . Petitioner has a
different version. He would say that respondent No.3 is an
accused in FIR No.1034 of 2010 of Peroorkkada Police Station for
causing hurt to one Narayanan Kutti who is an employee of S.A.P
Camp and there was departmental proceedings against
Crl.M.C.No.4892 of 2010
-: 2 :-
respondent No.3. In connection with that, petitioner summoned
respondent No.3 to the office on 01.11.2010 to serve two orders.
Respondent No.3 came to the office on that day, created
commotion, threatened petitioner and used abusive words
against him. Petitioner reported that matter to the superior
officer. While so, respondent No.3 made a complaint against
petitioner to respondent No.4 who ordered enquiry which
according to the petitioner resulted in exonerating him. It is in
the meantime that police registered a case on the information
given by respondent No.3.
3. The mere fact that petitioner was exonerated in the
departmental enquiry if any is not a ground to quash proceedings
against him. It is held so in Ayoob Ismail Vs. State of Keraala
(2008(4) KLT 977). On hearing learned Public Prosecutor it is
revealed that the matter is under investigation. I am not
persuaded to think that in the light of the allegations made by
respondent No.3, the FIR against petitioner and proceedings
against him are to be quashed.
Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case fails. It is
dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-