Point of Law: Since police officer takes pride in his/her uniform and visibility of a police officer is very critical for police and society, requirement of wearing same while on duty except where deviations are permissible, shall be scrupulously observed.

ORDER :

1. This Crl. M.C. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by an advocate to quash the final report and all proceedings in C.C. No. 2316 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from FIR No. 626/2014 of Guruvayoor Police Station alleging commission of offence under Sections 283, 294 (b) of IPC and under Section 117 (e) and 120 (b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

While Civil Police Officer Unnikrishnan was doing his traffic duty on 27-4-2014 at 10.35 a.m. he was pasting a sticker on the Car bearing Reg. No. KL-08-Q-1564 which was parked near the “No Parking Board” in front of Guruvayoor Devaswom Hospital causing obstruction to the movement of the vehicles, a man in white shirt came and pushed him, angrily shouted him and threatened the CPO and swirled abuses on CPO/6251 Madhu who was with him. It was alleged that the complainant was doing his official duty of affixing stickers on the Car. The complaint alleged that the petitioner caused obstruction to his duty and insulted the CPO in public.

3. The petitioner challenging the final report and all proceedings submitted that Annexure-A4 report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) submitted before the Kerala States Human Rights Commission pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner clearly found that there was a lapse on the part of the police which resulted in the petitioner acting against the officer, as the Civil Police Officer Madhu was in plain clothes and not in his uniform and he was posting sticker on his car. The petitioner, not aware of the fact that it was a civil police officer, bonafidely questioned the authority of the person, and that none of the allegations levelled made out any offence and thus prayed for quashing Annexure A charge-sheet.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P. Arun Kumar and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Maya M.N.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-A4 report prepared by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on the basis of the direction of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, clearly found that there was lapse on the part of the police in not doing his official duty wearing uniform and that led to the petitioner questioning the authority which in turn led to the subsequent acts. This report, according to the learned counsel is a public document that is unimpeachable and incontrovertible and thus the very basis of the prosecution case is lost.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in Swastika Enterprises and Another vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2019 KHC 794, to contend that Annexure-A4 being a public document, it can be relied on even in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is trite that even in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. public documents whose veracity is not disputed and those which are incontrovertible and unimpeachable can be referred or relied on in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Section 117 (a) reads as follows:

“117 Penalty for interfering in the functions of the police:

Whoever:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) threatens, obstructs or assaults a Police Officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties.”

The section speaks of threat, obstruction or assault against the police officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging his duties. It is clear from Annexure-A4 report, the veracity or content of which is not in dispute that the Civil Police Officer was not in his uniform. Resultantly, there is no question of the petitioner knowing that he is a police officer and as a sequel since there was no such knowledge, there cannot be any intention for preventing the police officer from discharging his duties. I hold accepting Annexure-A4 that no offence is made out under Section 117(e) of the Police Act. Since the requirement of the said section are not attracted in the insta