The court emphasizes that to prove misleading conduct under Section 117(d), a definite false statement must be established, which was absent in this case.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattambi ('Trial Court', for short), which has originated from Crime No.261 of 2021 registered by the Chalissery Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 117 (d) of the Kerala Police Act ('KP Act', in short).

2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that, even if the allegations in Annexure A4 final report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

3. The substratum of the prosecution case is that, on

01.07.2021 at around 05.00 hours, the Investigating Officer and party went to the house of the petitioner and showed him a photograph of Sayed Thangal (brother of the petitioner) and asked him whether he was the said person. The petitioner maintained stoic silence, but he was taken to the police station. In the meantime, Sayed Thangal escaped from the scene of occurrence. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A4 final report are taken on their value, the same would not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had not given any statement to the Investigating Officer as alleged by the prosecution. Even going by the allegations in the complaint as well as the final report, it is seen that the petitioner was shown a photograph of his brother and the petitioner maintained silence. Consequently, while the petitioner was taken to the police station, his brother escaped from the scene of occurrence. In order to attract the offence under Section 117 (d) of the KP Act, there should be a deliberate false statement made by the accused to the police, which is conspicuously absent in the proceedings. As the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the crime, he has already filed a petition before the Human Rights Commission and orders have been passed against the Investigating Officer. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead to his conviction. The entire prosecution case is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C.

He submits that if the allegations in the final report are taken on their face value, the same would attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. The contentions raised in the Crl.M.C. are matters that are to be decided during trial. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not committed the above offence. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 117 (d) of the KP Act, which reads as follows:

“117. Penalty for interfering in the functions of the police.- Whoever,-

(a) xx xx (d) Deliberately makes a false statement to a police officer with intent to mislead the police in material particulars in a police investigation or due performance of police duty.”

8. Going by the allegations in Annexure A4 final report, it is seen that the petitioner had not made any statement to the Investigating Officer. Instead, the allegation is that the petitioner maintained silence when a photograph of his brother was shown to him and the police on a mistaken impression that the petitioner was the actual accused, took him to the police station, and in the meantime, the actual accused es