O R D E R

Dated this 5th December, 2022 This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.863/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottappalam.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 324,294(b), and

506(i) of IPC.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner due to previous animosity, used abusive words against the defacto complainant, criminally intimidated her and also pelted stones which hit on her ankle of the left leg and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri. Renjith, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are close relatives. Admittedly, they are not in good terms and cases are pending between them. They are residing in the adjacent homes. The crime was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent. Annexure-II is the FIR. It contains the FIS as well. The crime was originally registered against two persons. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused and his son was arrayed as the 2nd accused. Subsequently, at the time of filing final report, the 2nd accused was deleted. A reading of the FIS would show that there were clear allegations against the petitioner as well as against his son namely Manoj. It was alleged that the petitioner as well as his son Manoj, abused the 2nd respondent and also pelted stones against her repeatedly. The same was repeated by the 2nd respondent in the statement given by her under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 01.05.2017. However, thereafter, another statement was given by her, in which it was stated that, in fact, it was the petitioner alone who abused and pelted stones against her. She specifically stated that the son of the petitioner was not involved in the incident and since, she entertained vengeance against him, his name was also disclosed in the FIS. Thus, it is clear that what was stated by the 2nd respondent in the FIS as well as in the first 161 statement, was false or rather not fully correct. It is also pertinent to note that on the next day of the incident, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint before the Women's Commission, Palakkad. Interestingly, the allegation in the said complaint was only against the son of the petitioner. There was no allegation at all against the petitioner. Thus, the 2nd respondent gave three different versions in the FIS, in the second 161 statement as well as in the complaint given to the Women's Commission. She has also admitted that in order to wreak vengeance against the son of the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in the FIS. It has come out on record that, there is long standing dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

6. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal [1992 KHC

600], the apex court considered in detail, the scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to quash the FIR. It was held inter alia that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, Section 482 could be invoked and the proceedings can be quashed. 7. The sequence of the events mentioned above would clearly show that the crime registered against the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent was maliciously and falsely instituted. Hence, no purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue.

Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.

863/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam, are hereby quashed and the Crl.M.C is allowed.

Sd/-

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE.

TR

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3566/2019 PETITIONER AN