Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
NAGESWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 444/2023
IPC - Accused Maintenance - IPC Sections List - The court emphasized the necessity of evidence appreciation at trial instead of quashing the FIR based on alleged procedural delays and factual disputes, affirming the applicability of Section 34 in conjunction with other offences within the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the 2nd accused, faced charges under several sections of the IPC, with allegations stemming from a complaint filed after a significant delay, questioning the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner and his co-accused contained specific actions that constituted offenses under the IPC, warranting a trial rather than dismissal of charges.
Issues: Whether the allegations made in the FIR were sufficient to constitute offenses under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, and if the delay in filing the complaint had any bearing on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allegations satisfying the ingredients of IPC offenses must be examined through the evidential process in a trial, and the mere existence of factual disputes does not justify quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea, affirming that the case should proceed to trial.
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in FIR No.28/2020 of Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 451 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
2. The crime is now pending consideration as C.C.No.718/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi.
3. Smt.Sujini.S, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, prosecution allegations are totally false. According to her, the FIR was registered only on 20.01.2020, while the incident is alleged to have occurred on 26.12.2019 and the belated complaint itself shows the falsity of the prosecution case. The learned counsel also pointed out that, no injury of any nature is seen inflicted on the defacto complainant and therefore, the offence under Section 323 IPC will not lie. Apart from the above, it was submitted that there is no allegation satisfying the ingredients of Section 341 of the and hence, the final report as against the petitioner ought to be quashed.
4. I have heard Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. On a perusal of the final report, it is noticed that accused Nos.
1 and 2 are alleged to have entered into an argument with the defacto complainant and thereafter allegedly assaulted him inside the business establishment of the defacto complainant. Prosecution further alleges that, while the 1st accused pushed down the defacto complainant and twisted his arm, the 2nd accused kicked him and thereby committed the offences alleged. The offence under Section
34 of the IPC has also been included against the petitioner.
6. Since, there are specific allegations in the FIR itself against the 2nd accused and since Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has already been added, I am of the view that the contentions now raised are matters which are factual in nature requiring appreciation of evidence. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where the factual allegation even if admitted would not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged. (See the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]). Since, I am satisfied that the allegations on the face of it satisfy the ingredients of the offeces alleged, contentions now raised can only be decided after trial.
Hence this Crl.M.C is without any merit and is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
