HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAI JOSHI ALIAS REJI JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7329/2017
Criminal - Quashing of Complaint - Cr.P.C. Sections 340, 341 - The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal under Section 341, rendering the petition under Section 482 unnecessary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a complaint alleging the use of a fraudulent driving license in a motor accident claim, arguing that no offense was made out.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. was available, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked.
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable given the availability of an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an alternative remedy exists, it should be pursued instead of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous case was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash Annexure-A1 complaint and the entire proceedings in CC No. 923/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. The allegation is that the petitioner as respondent No.1 in OP(MV) No. 1701/2007 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor produced a driving licence and the number stated therein was found that of one issued to another person by the authority concerned. Hence, the complaint is filed by the Sheristadar of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, invoking the powers under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations in Annexure-A are accepted in toto, no offence is made out. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A1.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Admittedly, there is an order under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. and consequently, Annexure-A1 complaint is filed. As per Sec. 341 Cr.P.C., an appeal is maintainable against such proceedings. This Court in order dated 23.08.2024 in Crl.M.C. No.5127/2016 considered this point in detail. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :
8. “The contention of the petitioner is that Annexure- 1 complaint is not maintainable and no offence is made out in Annexure-1 complaint. But when an appeal can be filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. by a person against whom such a complaint has been made, he can raise all contentions in such an appeal including the maintainability of the offence alleged in the complaint. Therefore when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court need not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-1 complaint. It is settled law that when an appeal is maintainable unless there are extraordinary situations, this Court need not invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in this case, when the petitioner has a right of appeal under Cr.P.C, this Court need not entertain this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I make it clear that if an appeal is filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against Annexure-1 complaint before the jurisdictional court within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the jurisdictional appellate court will exclude the time during which this criminal miscellaneous case was pending before this Court, while computing limitation period if any. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this case are left open and he is free to agitate the same before the appellate court or before the jurisdictional court at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. “
4. In the light of the above principle, I am of the considered opinion that the Crl.M.C. is not maintainable because the petitioner can file an appeal under Sec. 341 Cr.P.C. When this Court took a stand that no petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to approach the appellate court and to facilitate the same, the trial before the lower court may be deferred. It is also submitted that the time during which this Criminal Miscellaneous case was pending may be excluded, while calculating the limitation period. I think that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor shall defer the trial in CC No. 923/2015 for a period of thirty days from today.
2) In the meanwhile, the petitioner is free to file appeal under Sec. 341 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law.
3) If an appeal is filed against the proceedings under Sec.
340 Cr.P.C, the time during which this Crl.M.C. was pending before this Court will be excluded, while computing the limitation, if any.
4) All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. are left open.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.