2023 Supreme(Ker) 295
K. BABU
Muhammed Shiraz @ Shiraz S/o Muhammed Haneefa – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh, Sameer M. Nair, Geethu Krishnan, Sailakshmi Menon.
For the Respondent: Bindu O.V.
Judgement Key Points
- Petitioner filed W.P. (Crl.) under Article 226 to quash Ext.P1 FIR No. 775/2021 of Aranmula Police Station, Ext.P2 final report, and proceedings in S.C. No. 463/2021 (!) (!) [15000532970001]
- Petitioner is accused No. 3 facing charges under IPC Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450, 376(3), 366A r/w 34; POCSO Sections 4(2) r/w 3(a), 5(l) r/w 6, 8 r/w 7, 9(l) r/w 10, 11(iv) r/w 12, 16 r/w 17; JJ Act Section 75 (!) (!)
- Victim, a 14-year-old girl, went missing on 28.7.2021; stepfather reported on 29.7.2021 that she left with a young man on a scooter (!)
- FIR No. 772/2021 registered under Section 57 Kerala Police Act based on missing person report (!) (!) [15000532970007]
- Police inquiry under Section 57 located victim at residence; her statement to counsellor revealed sexual assault by petitioner at a residence (!)
- FIR No. 775/2021 registered on 29.7.2021 based on victim's statement, alleging offences under JJ Act Section 75 and POCSO Sections 7, 8, 9(1), 10 (!) (!)
- Closure report submitted and accepted in FIR No. 772/2021 (!)
- Final report in FIR No. 775/2021 added IPC and further POCSO offences (!)
- Petitioner's argument: FIR 775/2021 is invalid second FIR after FIR 772/2021; should have converted Section 57 FIR by adding penal provisions [15000532970003][15000532970010]
- Prosecution: Section 57 FIR only for locating missing person, not Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR [15000532970004]
- Section 154 Cr.P.C. requires information on cognizable offence reduced to writing, signed, and entered in book; leads to investigation under Sections 156, 157 [15000532970005]
- Section 57 Kerala Police Act mandates registering missing person info like cognizable offence, immediate action to locate, inquiry with statements and searches (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Section 57 FIR not equivalent to Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR; purpose limited to locating missing person, no full investigation under Cr.P.C. [15000532970008] (!)
- During Section 57 inquiry, police must register proper Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR if cognizable offence info received [15000532970009]
- Reasons rejecting petitioner's submission: (1) Section 57 only for locating missing; (2) initial info revealed no cognizable offence; (3) victim's statement during inquiry disclosed offences leading to FIR 775/2021 (!) (!) [15000532970011]
- No second FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.; procedure followed scheme of Cr.P.C. and Section 57 [15000532970012][15000532970013]
- Writ petition dismissed in limine [15000532970014]
JUDGMENT :
K. BABU, J.
1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition (Crl.), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially seeks to quash Ext.P1 FIR No. 775/2021 of Aranmula Police Station, ExtP2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 463 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I (POCSO Special Court), Pathanamthitta. The petitioner is accused No. 3 in the Sessions Case. He, along with the other accused, faces charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450, 376(3), 366A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4(2) r/w Section 3(a), Section 5(l) r/w Section 6, Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 9(l) r/w Section 10, Section 11(iv) r/w Section 12, Section 16 r/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
FACTS:
2. The victim, a 14-year-old girl, was found missing on 28.7.2021. She was residing with her mother and stepfather. The stepfather, on 29.7.2021, reported the missing of child before the Police. In the information before the Police, the stepfather of the victim reported that when he came back from his place of work and enquired about the victim, his wife told him that she fell
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
