Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 88357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN, J
1st and 2nd accused – Appellant
Versus
2nd respondent/defacto complainant – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case | Crime No.359/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Jaju Babu
For the Respondents: Not specified
The High Court can quash an FIR if it finds the allegations to be false, frivolous, or retaliatory, particularly when manifesting mala fide intent.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 296(b) r/w 3(5) - Quashment of FIR - Allegations of abuse and assault by KSEB officials deemed retaliatory and unsupported by evidence - The court emphasized that the FIR was filed as an afterthought to retaliate against officials performing their duties, lacking bona fides. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashment of FIR - High Court has the authority to quash FIRs that are manifestly false or instituted with mala fides, particularly when retaliatory motives are evident. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, KSEB officials, faced allegations of assaulting the defacto complainant while disconnecting electricity for non-payment. The complaint was filed after previous crimes involving the complainant's children obstructing KSEB duties.
Findings of Court:
The court found the FIR to be baseless and retaliatory, quashing it under Section 528 of BNSS.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR was sustainable given the context of previous altercations involving the defacto complainant's children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure and lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims against the KSEB officials.
Result: The FIR in Crime No.359/2024 was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case involving allegations against kseb officials. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the legitimacy of the fir. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the sustainability of the fir based on evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal standards for quashing firs based on mala fide intentions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion that the fir is quashed due to lack of bona fides in the allegations. (Para 13) |
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (` BNSS ’ for short), seeking quashment of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure F FIR arising out of Crime No.359/2024 of Thiruvambady Police Station, Kozhikode Rural. The petitioners are the 1st and 2nd accused in the above crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Perused the relevant documents.
3. Precisely spelt, the prosecution case is that at about 13.30 hours on 04.07.2024 when the accused herein, who are officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board (`KSEB’ for short), reached the house of the defacto complainant to disconnect the electric supply on failure to pay electricity bill, the 1st accused abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language. The 2nd accused caught hold of the shoulder of the defacto complainant, pushed her and thereby she fell down and sustained injuries; and thus her modesty was outraged. The further allegation is that the accused removed the solar bulbs fitted on the compound wall of the defacto complainant’s house. On this backdrop, prosecution alleges that the petitioners herein committed offences punishable under Sections 126 (2) , 115(2), 74 , 296(b) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (` BNS ’ for short).
4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Jaju Babu, who appeared for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the entire case is false and foisted. It is submitted that initially Crime No.354/2024 of Thiruvambady Police Station was registered against one Ajmal and Shahadad, the children of the defacto complainant, based on the complaint lodged by the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Thiruvambady, alleging that accused 1 and 2 in that crime, who are none other than the children of the defacto complainant in the present crime, obstructed the duties of the KSEB officials when they reached the house of the defacto complainant herein, to disconnect the electric supply, for failure to pay electricity charges even after issuance of demand cum disconnection notice, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 351 and 132 of the BNS S . On account of the assault and attack by the sons of the defacto complainant in that case, connection could not be given and the matter was reported to the Assistant Engineer. On 05.07.2024 at about 12.45 p.m the sons of the defacto complainant in this case and others reached the KSEB office with a vessel full of water and food waste, threatening the officials that they would make sure that the employee, who effected disconnection, would consume the same. Ultimately at about 3 p.m, reconnection was given. At 4.50 pm on that day itself, Ajmal, who is the son of the defacto complainant in this case, made a threat to the effect that the Board officials would be jailed on a complaint by a woman. Again the sons of the defacto complainant herein poured waste water containing food waste over the Assistant Engineer and also caused damages to various electronic items as well as furniture in the office. On these allegations, Crime No.356 of 2024 of Thiruvambady Police Station was registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 32 (a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (`PDPP Act’ for short) as well as under Sections 32 9, 351, 121 and 132 read with 3(5) of the of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita (` ’ for short).
