IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2003(B) CRIME NO.9 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA (CRIME REGISTERED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PALA) PETITIONER: ------------ ANIL SREENIVAS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, RESIDING AT KUNNATHU HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV.K. RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON 03/04/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.P.NO.620/2003 IN CRL.M.C.NO.179/2003 DISMISSED 03/04/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C. NO. 179 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally. He was the complainant in S.T.No.2106 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pala. He was summoned to appear before the court as a witness in the case. On 3.6.2002, the petitioner was not present before the court and, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued to produce him on 3.9.2002. On 3.9.2002, it is recorded that entry to the court was obstructed by strike. There was also an order to repeat non-bailable warrant to the complainant and the case was posted to 4.1.2003. On 4.1.2003, the petitioner, who was the complainant in S.T.No.2106 of 2001 was examined in part as PW2. His evidence was not over before lunch recess. Therefore, his further examination was adjourned, to be held after lunch. After lunch, the petitioner did not appear before the court. When the case was taken up, it was reported to the Magistrate that the petitioner was not seen in the court premises. At 3.40 p.m., on 4.1.2003, Annexure-A was issued by the Magistrate to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pala, stating that the petitioner herein intentionally escaped from lawful detention of the court. On the basis of Annexure – A, Annexure-C, F.I.R., was registered. The CRL.M.C. NO. 179 OF 2003 :: 2 :: petitioner seeks intervention of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records leading to Annexure-C, F.I.R., and to quash the same. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, as stated in Annexures-A and C, no offence under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. According to the counsel for the petitioner, even if all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are taken as true, no offence under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It was contended that there was no lawful detention as the petitioner was not arrested and produced. When non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, he voluntarily appeared before the court and therefore, there was no question of detention. It is also stated that when there was no detention, there cannot be any custody within the meaning of Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think that it would be proper, at this stage, to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner, since disputed questions of fact are involved. Now only FIR is registered. The investigation is not over. Final report is not filed. I do not think that this is a case where FIR is liable to be quashed. The principles of law in this regard are well settled. Quashing of an FIR CRL.M.C. NO. 179 OF 2003 :: 3 :: can be had only in exceptional circumstances. I do not think that this is a case where such exceptional circumstances are made out. I am also of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner, if answered, that may cause prejudice to either the petitioner or the prosecution. Even if all the contentions raised by the petitioner are accepted, that may not be a ground for quashing the FIR as a whole and to hold that the petitioner should be exonerated. Even if the contentions are accepted, for the acts complained of, appropriate proceedings could be continued on the basis of the same FIR. Therefore, I am of the view that jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be invoked at this stage. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO. 179 OF 2003 B O R D E R 3rd April, 2008 -------------------------------------------