Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2021
CMP 2208/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY
CRIME 826/2021 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANOOP KUMAR K
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.ANANDHA KRISHNAN, KARAYATH HOUSE, 8TH MILE, MAYYIL
(P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT - 670602
BY ADV K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
2
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, THALASSERY - 670106
SR.PP- SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.6626/2021
2
A court will not quash an order for the detention of a mobile phone during investigation if the phone contains evidence that is relevant to the case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND ASSAULT - ABUSIVE MESSAGES - DETENTION OF MOBILE PHONE DURING INVESTIGATION - QUASHING OF ORDER - HELD, NO GROUNDS TO QUASH ORDER - MOBILE PHONE REQUIRED FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION - PETITIONER CAN APPLY FOR DUPLICATE SIM CARD
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of wrongful restraint, assault, and sending abusive messages to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant's mother was in a live-in relationship with the petitioner, and after a dispute, she stopped taking his calls. The petitioner then started calling the defacto complainant and sending abusive messages to him and his mother. Infuriated, the petitioner went to their residence and slapped the defacto complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mobile phone contained evidence of the abusive messages sent by the petitioner and that it needed to be examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory as part of the investigation. The court also noted that the petitioner could apply for a duplicate SIM card.
Issues: Whether the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery, dismissing the petitioner's application for interim custody of his mobile phone should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there were no grounds to quash the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. The mobile phone was required for forensic examination, and the petitioner could apply for a duplicate SIM card.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in crime 826/2021 of Dharmadam police station in Kannur district, which was registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by Thejas Mahendran alleging offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. The allegation is that on 16.11.2021 at 22.00 hours the accused, who is a resident in the house of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and slapped him on his face and also sent abusive messages to his mobile phone. During the course of investigation the mobile phone was seized and produced before the Court; in order to get interim custody of the same, he moved CMP No.2208/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery, which was dismissed by Annexure-II order. Petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order and to release the mobile phone to him.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, detention of the mobile phone during the course of investigation is totally unwarranted, that the petitioner is a businessman, all his contact numbers and personal details are stored in the mobile phone and that the detention of the phone causes untold hardships and inconveniences to him.
4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has made available the Case Diary for perusal. Opposing the application she pointed out that the defacto complainant is a youth of 18 years old; his mother is a divorcee. He is residing with his mother. A living together relationship was commenced between his mother and the petitioner; it seems that then some bickering developed in the relationship between the mother and the petitioner and the mother stopped picking up the calls of the petitioner. Then the petitioner started calling in the phone of the defacto complainant and started sending uncharitable messages to his mobile phone abusing the boy and his mother. Then he also stopped picking up the petitioner's phone calls. Infuriated by the same, the petitioner reached their residence and slapped the defacto complainant on his face. The case diary indicates that screen shots of the messages, which are the abuses showered on the boy and the mother, have been taken. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the mobile phone requires to be examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory as part of investigation of the case.
5. In the circumstances stated above, there is no point in releasing the mobile phone to the interim custody of the petitioner and Annexure-II order does not warrant interference. The Crl.M.C. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move the Court again, after the phone is examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the mobile phone contains personal details and other contact details of the petitioner. It is made clear that the registration of this crime will not stand on the way of applying for a duplicate SIM card by the petitioner.
With the above observation the Criminal M.C. is dismissed.
