IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4930 of 2010() ------------------------- CRIME NO 810OF 2010 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- VENUGOPALAN N., NEELANCHERI HOUSE, MARIALAYA P.O., PERUMTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679357. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKKUR POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. V.K.RAJU, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679322. 3. CHERIAN VARGHESE, RETD. DY.S.P., KALLIATH, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678007. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV. SMT PUSHPALATHA M K THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4930 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner having served the Indian Military for sometime retired from that service, joined the Kerala Home Guard and was engaged on traffic duty on daily basis in Malappuram District. While he was engaged in duty at Silk Palace Junction, Perinthalmanna on 07.08.2010 at about 10p.m, respondent No.3 who retired as Dy.S.P from Malappuram District is said to have parked his vehicle in a non parking area and according to the petitioner, on his asking respondent No.3 to remove the vehicle there was some quarrel in which respondent No.3 is said to have abuse petitioner. Later, on the influence of respondent No.3, the Asst.SI of Police (respondent No.2) registered a case against petitioner as crime No.810 of 2010 for offences punishable under Secs.341 and 294(b) of the Penal Code. Petitioner says that the allegations are false and that he has been falsely implicated. Petitioner claims that he has good record of military service and produced certain documents to support that. Petitioner seeks to quash Annexures-1 and 2, FIR and complaint preferred by respondent No.3. Crl.M.C.No.4930 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. The Supreme Court has pointed out time and again as to in what all circumstances the High Court should interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Cr.P.C) when a crime is registered and is being investigated. Interference is warranted when allegations are thoroughly misconceived or the allegations even if taken on face value did not disclose any offence. Respondent No.3 has filed Annexure-2, complaint before the local police where he has stated that petitioner who was on traffic duty wrongfully restrained him by catching on the collar of his shirt and he was abused in filthy language. It is based on Annexure-2 that respondent No.2 has registered Annexure-1, FIR. True, the exact words allegedly used by petitioners are not stated in Annexure-A2, complaint but, I must bear in mind the FIR is not an Encyclopedia of the prosecution case. It is within the realm of investigation to find out as to what exactly are the words allegedly used by petitioner and whether that would attract Sec.294(b) of the Penal Code. In the nature of the allegdations referred to and contained in Annexure- 2, complaint I am not inclined to say at this stage that the allegations are untrue and that registration of the case and investigation are nothing but abuse of process of law. This court Crl.M.C.No.4930 of 2010 -: 3 :- therefore cannot interfere at this stage. Resultantly without expressing opinion as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in Annexures- 1 and 2 this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-