Interpretation of the provisions under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA Act and the application of the proviso to Section 2(p) in determining the classification of an individual as a 'Known Rowdy'.

Headnote:
KAAPA Act - Challenge to order under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Petitioner's contention that he cannot be classified as 'Known Rowdy' due to the nature of the offenses - Court quashes the impugned order
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges an order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, directing him to report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur for a period of six months, treating him as a 'Known Rowdy'. The petitioner's main contention is that he cannot be classified as 'Known Rowdy' due to the nature of the offenses, as most cases were within the family and close relatives, and he had not been convicted in any of the cases.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the petitioner's argument meritorious, stating that as per the provisions of the KAAPA Act, there must be three separate instances to initiate proceedings against him. The court quashed the impugned order based on this finding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be classified as a 'Known Rowdy' under the KAAPA Act due to the nature of the offenses, most of which were within the family and close relatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA Act, which requires three separate instances to initiate proceedings against an individual as a 'Known Rowdy'. The court also considered the proviso to Section 2(p) of the KAAPA Act, which excludes cases involving family and close relatives from consideration.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order, disposing of the W.P. (Crl.) accordingly.

J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The petitioner, namely, chandran, challenges an order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short “KAAPA Act). Ext. P3 is the order. By that order, he was directed to report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur for a period of six months, treating him as a “Known Rowdy”. The Advisory Board ordered that instead of reporting before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur, he shall be reported before the Station House Officer, Ottapalam for a period of three months from

15.01.2024. This is questioned before this Court.

2. The petitioner's main contention is that he cannot be classified as “Known Rowdy” for the reasons that the four offences relied on would not attract to characterise him as a “Known Rowdy”. It is submitted that out of four cases, three cases are within the family and all the defacto complainants are blood relatives of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definition of “Known Rowdy” under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA Act. According to him, in none of the cases, he has been convicted and therefore, the Clause 2(p)(iii) alone would attract. As per the above Clause, there must be three separate instances for initiating action against him. It is further submitted that in the light of proviso to Section 2(p) of the KAPPA Act, in all the cases, thosecases involving family and close relative shall be omitted from consideration. Therefore, omitting three cases, one case alone would attract the provisions under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA Act to treat him as a “Known Rowdy”. Thus, it is submitted that for a simple offence, he cannot be classified as a “Known Rowdy”. We find that this argument is meritorious. As we have seen that all the crimes have been registered by his own brother and brother's son and these cases could not have been considered for passing an order under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA Act, one case alone would qualify for the purpose of initiating proceedings under the KAAPA Act.

3. In view of the provisions under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA Act there must be three separate instances, otherwise no proceeding could have been initiated against him under the KAAPA Act. Therefore, we quash the impugned order.

This W.P. (Crl.) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 218/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. B3-

18913/2023/TSR DATED 01.11.2023 OF THE

3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. B3-

18913/2023/TSR DATED 01.12.2023 OF THE

3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.12.2023 BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD UNDER THE KERALA ANTI-

SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTIONS) ACT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.01.2024 IN OP 136/2023 OF THE ADVISORY BOARD UNDER THE KERALA ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTIONS) ACT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN THE CRIME NO 235/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION DATED 16.02.2016 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, OTTAPALAM WITH RESPECT TO CRIME NO. 354/2008 DATED

18.01.2024 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO119/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED

25.04.2013 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.

828/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, OTTAPALAM DATED

25.05.2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15186

Interpretation of the provisions under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA Act and the application of the proviso to Section 2(p) in determining the classification of an individual as a 'Known Rowdy'.

Login now and unlock premium legal research