Madhusoodhanan vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

This Crl.M.C is filed by the 13th accused in C.P.No.25 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura seeking to quash Annexure-A Final Report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as against the petitioner.

2.The aforesaid committal proceedings are based on the final report submitted in Crime No.1536 of 2017 of Udayamperur Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 120B, 323, 342, 354, 357, 366, 506(1), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that, the petitioner is the Secretary of a Yoga Centre under the name and style Sivasakthi Yoga Centre. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was forcibly taken by accused Nos.6,7,8 and 9 to the Yoga Centre as they were aggrieved by the marriage performed by the de facto complainant with CW2 who belongs to Christian religion, whereas the de facto complainant belongs to Hindu religion. After taking the de facto complainant to the aforesaid Yoga Centre, the 1st accused who is conducting the said institution, along with accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are the counselors therein, with the help of the 5th accused forcibly detained the de facto complainant. The hands and legs of the de facto complainant were tied and she was also subjected assault. It was also alleged that when the de facto complainant cried loudly her dresses were torn by the accused persons. For persuading her to withdraw herself from the marriage with a person of another religion, 1st accused had taken classes defaming other religions and also threatened her that if the de facto complainant continues her relationship with CW2, she would be killed. The de facto complainant was illegally detained in the said Yoga Centre from 31.07.2017 to 21.08.2017 and accordingly all the accused persons have committed the offences under the provisions mentioned above.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the contents of Annexure-A final report would not constitute any of the offences as against the petitioner herein as no specific overt act has been mentioned in the said final report. In the said circumstances, he seeks for invocation of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.Heard Sri.J.Omprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Director General of Prosecution and Sri.A.Rajasimhan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, no offences are made out against the petitioner. By referring to the contents of the charge sheet, it is pointed out that, he was implicated, without any supporting materials. The learned counsel further points out that the only reference of the petitioner in the charge sheet is with regard to the seizure of certain documents such as membership register, minutes book, account books and other documents relating to the day to day affairs of the Yoga Centre from his possession. The involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offences alleged is not discernible from any of the materials available. Reliance was also placed on the judgment reported in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Others [2021 (5)KHC SN 22].

5.The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution seriously opposes the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel points out that the registration of the aforesaid crime itself was made pursuant to the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Anees Hameed v. State of Kerala [2017(4) KLT 495]. It was pointed out that, while considering a petition for writ of habeas corpus submitted by one Anees, it has come out that the detenue therein was illegally detained in the said Yoga Centre, and this Court specifically called for a report from the police in connection with the same. From the report so obtained, it was revealed that, the said institution was regularly carrying out the activities of detention of various persons belong to Hindu religion, who are involved in love relationship with persons belonging to other religions and they were being subjected to various kinds of torture in order to persuade them to leave the relationship with their respective partners. In such circumstances, a detailed investigation was ordered by this Court. In the investigation so conducted, aforesaid offences were revealed and Annexure-A charge sheet was accordingly submitted. It was pointed out that the petitioner/13th accused is the Secretary of the said institution and was responsible for the day to day affairs of the institution. A statement was also submitted by the 1st respondent, wherein, the aforesaid contentions were specifically averred. It was also stated in the said statement, that it was the petitioner herein who was collecting money from several persons in the name of Yoga Centre through his personal bank account and the account statement indicating the aforesaid transactions is already produced before the court and it forms part of Annexure-A. In such circumstances, the learned Senior counsel seeks for dismissal of the Crl.M.C.

6.Sri.A.Rajasimhan,  learned  counsel   for  the   2nd respondent, strongly opposes the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The learned counsel brought my attention to the statements made by a number of witnesses which forms part of Annexure-A and contends that, all the said witnesses were subjected to severe torture and were illegally detained for a substantial period extending to months and year. The activities that were being conducted in the said Yoga Centre were part of an organized strategy with specific objectives. The petitioner being the Secretary of the said establishment, cannot escape from culpability, by merely stating that the charge sheet submitted does not contain any overt act against the petitioner herein. It was pointed out that since the charge sheet contains offences under Section 120B as well as 34 IPC, even in the absence of any specific overt act against the petitioner he can be implicated. It was also contended that the question of involvement of the petitioner is a question of fact which is to be decided on the basis of evidence to be adduced in a full fledged trial and under no circumstances the said issue can be considered in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of Crl.M.C.

7.The short question that arises here is whether the offences alleged in Annexure-A charge sheet are attracted against the petitioner herein or not. Admittedly, the petitioner/13th accused is the Secretary of the institution. It is discernible from Annexure-A final report that the documents indicating the day to day activities of the institution were recovered from the possession of the petitioner herein and it clearly establishes that he was the custodian of the same. His official position as that of the Secretary, is also not disputed by him. Statements given by the witnesses would reveal that, large number of persons belonging to Hindu religion were illegally detained in the aforesaid Yoga Centre and subjected to various kinds of brutalities by the persons who are in the helm of affairs of the same. The main objective for such detention was to compel the aforesaid victims to withdraw themselves from their respective relationships of love with the persons belonging to other religions. It is also discernible that the aforesaid statements contained allegation to the effect that even inter caste relationships which were within the Hindu religion also were objected to. In Anees Hameed's case (supra) this Court has specifically taken note of the atrocities allegedly being committed in the said premises and the registration of the crime was pursuant to the same.

8.It is true that specific overt act of commission of any physical assault by the petitioner is not mentioned in Annexure-A charge sheet. But as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, among the offences alleged, there are offences under section 120B and section 34 of IPC, which attribute culpability on the accused even without any allegation of a specific overt act. It is discernible from the records that, several victims were illegally detained in the said premises as a matter of routine affair. Their illegal detention and the atrocities committed against them continued for substantially long periods extending to months and year. As mentioned above, admittedly the petitioner was the Secretary of the said institution and he was the person entrusted with the day to day affairs of the said institution. There is an allegation that the petitioner was mobilizing funds required for conducting the institution through his personal bank account. The aforesaid allegation is fortified from the statements of the witnesses that the institution used to collect funds from the families of the persons who were detained in the said premises.

9.In a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C, a literal interpretation of the words and averments in the charge sheet is not at all warranted. What is relevant is the overall examination of the sequence of events and the circumstances under which such events took place, by reading the charge sheet as a whole. If examination of the contents of the materials as a whole reveals a prima facie case against the petitioner, it is not proper to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Benefit of doubt as available to the accused in criminal trial, cannot be extended to him, in a proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In case two views are possible as to the involvement of the accused in the alleged commission of crime while considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the view which supports the prosecution is to be adopted. This is because, if the view supporting the accused is adopted and the proceedings are quashed based on the same, the prosecution would be denied a proper opportunity to establish the allegations by adducing evidence in support of the same and it would result in to denial of justice to the victim. In Rajiv Thappar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330], it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the question of invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court, in the manner as follows:

"28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

29.The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, at the stages referred to herein above, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice."

10.The defenses/contentions supporting the innocence of the accused will be available to him even if his contentions to that effect were not considered in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would be possible for him to establish his innocence during the trial. On the other hand, if the proceedings were terminated by invoking the powers of the High Court, the entire proceedings would come to an end as against the accused and this would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution, as the prosecution would be deprived of the opportunity to establish the allegations by adducing evidence. It is also to be noted in this regard that, while considering the rights of the petitioner/accused, we cannot forget the fact that victims also have rights to see that persons who are actually responsible for the atrocities committed to them are booked and punished in accordance with law.

11.The decision in Ravindranatha Bajpe (supra) relied on by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The case considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said decision was relating to acts of laying of Pipes by the side of Mangalore-Bajpe Old Airport Road by the Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. It was contended that the accused persons including the Chairman of the said company were not having any direct knowledge in the actions which resulted in registration of the crime, as he was not involved in the act of laying of pipeline directly. It was in the factual circumstances therein the observations were made by the Honourable Supreme Court, which was a completely different scenario, than that of this case. In this case, the materials reveal that, a series of acts of torture, with a common object, (i.e to compel the victims who belong to a particular religion to withdraw themselves from the relationship they were having with person from other religions) were being committed in the said institution, regularly and the petitioner was the Secretary of the same at the relevant time. There is also allegation that, necessary funds for running the said institution was being raised by the petitioner through his personal bank account. In such circumstances, the question of involvement of the petitioner in commission of the crime is a matter of evidence and a decision on his non-involvement cannot be decided without ascertaining the materials that would come out in a full fledged trial.

12.Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court as aforesaid, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to consider the contentions put forward by the petitioner at this juncture. As mentioned above, the charge sheet contains allegations that he was the Secretary of the institution and the atrocities allegedly suffered by the de facto complainant was not a single instance. There are ample materials on record to arrive at the prima facie finding that such kinds of atrocities were being meted out to several persons as a routine course. The period of such detention and illegal acts in individual cases extended several months and years. In such circumstances, being the person who was having a controlling role and occupying a managerial position of the said establishment, his role cannot be ignored, without examining the evidence to be let in during the trial. In such circumstances, the question whether the activities conducted in the said institution was with the knowledge and connivance by the petitioner herein is absolutely a matter of evidence and it cannot not be decided in a procedure of this nature.

In such circumstances, I do not find that, this is a fit case where the powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked. The Cri.M.C is accordingly dismissed, as it lacks merits.