IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940 [CASE NUMBER] CRIME NO. 2488/2018 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/1ST & 2ND ACCUSED: 1 A.SUBAIR, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED KANNU, T.C.39/1376, KACHERI VEEDU, CHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. - 695 036. 2 SHAHEEN S., S/O. A.SUBAIR T.C. 39/1376, KAHERI VEEDU, CHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST - 695 036. BY A.SUBAIR,(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [ACT] - 695 036. BY SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 ORDER
The petitioners herein are the accused in [CASE NUMBER] of the Fort Police Station. The aforesaid Crime has been registered at the instance of a lady under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT]. The proceedings are sought to be quashed at the threshold itself.
2. According to the de facto complainant, there were civil litigation between herself and the petitioners herein, which ended in her favour. Aggrieved by the above, the accused, who are father and son respectively, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into her residential home and hurled abuses at her. When her husband intervened, he was assaulted and injuries were inflicted.
3. I have heard Sri.[ENTITY], the 1st petitioner, who argued the matter in-person. He contended that the allegations are frivolous and no incident of the nature alleged had taken place. He would contend that the de facto complainant and her family members were the actual aggressors. He would also rely on Annexure-B outpatient ticket to substantiate his contention. He would also rely on Annexures-C to E to substantiate his contention that the de facto complainant had an axe to grind against him and his family members.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages and according to him, this Court will not be justified in terminating the proceedings at this stage.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. Terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold itself, or at the stage of FIR is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and with great circumspection. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently have given a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice.
6. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others [2009(1) SCC 516], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to reiterate that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Same view was taken in [PRECEDENT], in [PRECEDENT] and most recently in [PRECEDENT].
7. Time and again, it has been emphasized by the Apex Court as well as this Court that the power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law.
8. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced and after having tested them in the light of the binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. Furthermore, this Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry to determine whether the allegations in the FIR are likely to be established by evidence. I see no reason to interfere with the criminal investigation at this stage.
9. If the petitioners is in any way aggrieved, they will be at liberty to raise their contentions after the filing of the final report.
This petition will stand dismissed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE avs APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE.A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN [CASE NUMBER] OF [ACT].
ANNEXURE.B TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT TICKET OF TALUK HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAURAM DATED 8.12.2018.
ANNEXURE.C TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN I.A.6/03 IN A.A.98/03 DTD.28.2.03 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L.R.),ALAPPUZHA.
ANNEXURE.D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN [SECTION] DATED 13.6.2013 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE.E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2018 FROM THE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE.F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] DTD.12.7.10 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE.G TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 9.1.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: