Sarath Kumar vs State Of Kerala

S.Manu, J

FIR in Crime No.10/2019 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta District is sought to be quashed in this Crl.M.C. Petitioner is the sole accused in the case. Offences alleged are under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of IPC. Crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2019.

The 2nd  respondent in her FIS stated as follows:-

Second respondent was undergoing HDC & BM course in Co-operative Training College, Aranmula. Betrothal of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was conducted on 10.12.2018. Petitioner was employed abroad. After the betrothal he had to return to the foreign country where he was employed. When the parents of the 2nd respondent visited his house on the date of his departure, his parents told them that the betrothal was not conducted appropriately and also that the 2nd respondent had some other affairs. They were also told that the petitioner no longer needed the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent informed this to the petitioner. Finally it was decided to drop the proposal of marriage. Thereafter, on 17.12.2018, while the 2nd respondent was coming back to her home after attending classes, the petitioner approached her in Balasramam Road, caught hold of her hand and forced her to travel with him on his bike.

On the basis of the information furnished by the 2nd respondent, Aranmula police registered the crime as noted above. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in this Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FI Statement are assumed as correct the offences alleged against the petitioner will not lie. He vehemently argued that the launching of prosecution against the petitioner is apparently with malafide intention. The alleged date of occurrence is 17.12.2018. However, the matter was reported and crime was registered only on 02.01.2019. No reason is stated by the 2nd respondent for the delay in reporting the matter. So also he contended that ingredients to constitute none of the offences alleged against the petitioner are available. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammad Wajid and others v. State of U.P. and others [AIR 2023 SC 3784] to contend that offence under Section 506 of IPC is not attracted. Similarly, relying on the judgment in State of Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63] he submitted that offence under Section 354 of IPC is also not made out. Regarding the offence under Section 341 of IPC, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in N.S.Madhanagopal and others v. K.Lalitha [2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1021 (SC)] to contend that the offence of wrongful restraint also will not stand in the case on hand. The learned counsel relied on State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others [(1988) 1 SCC 692] and State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and others [(1977) 2 SCC 699] to contend that invoking inherent powers of the High Court to quash FIR in the interest of justice is essential in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that interference by this Court at this stage will not be justified and the investigation may be permitted to go on. He submitted that it is too early to infer that no materials are available to sustain the alleged offences. Quashing of FIR is not the normal rule. He submitted that if the Crl.M.C. is allowed that will result in injustice as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned.

I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I have also perused the Crl.M.C. as well as the documents produced. Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner have also been perused. Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent was also examined.

It is true that there is delay in the matter of reporting the alleged incident. The alleged occurrence was on 17.12.2018. Crime was registered only on 02.01.2019. Betrothal of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was held on 10.12.2018. Within a short span of time differences of opinion developed between the families and it was decided to drop the proposal. The date of alleged occurrence is after the proposal was decided to be dropped. The 2nd respondent in her counter affidavit states that, on 17.12.2018, the petitioner caught hold of her hand and pulled her on the road as stated in the FIS. He also intimidated and abused her. Regarding the delay, 2nd respondent states that she as well as her parents were in stress and difficulty on account of the unfortunate developments after the betrothal. Therefore they were not in a position to rush to the police station and complain about the incident. She also submitted that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner fervently submitted that the allegations in the belated FIS do not constitute the offences alleged and therefore the FIR is liable to be quashed, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter at this stage. Inherent jurisdiction vested with the High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. Where no offfence is disclosed, quashing of FIR or complaint will be justified. If any offences are disclosed then Court will not be justified in terminating the proceedings by quashing the FIR. Quashing of FIR can be resorted to only in exceptional and appropriate cases. In the present case it cannot be said that the FIS does not disclose commission of any criminal acts by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has clearly stated that while she was proceeding to her home she was restrained by the petitioner, he caught hold of her hand and attempted to force her to travel on his bike. The 2nd respondent has given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also as revealed in her counter affidavit. Whether any offences were committed as alleged and whether there is evidence for the same is a matter to be investigated by police. Registration of crime on the basis of the statement of the de facto complainant cannot be held as illegal as the statement discloses an occurrence having criminal implications. Therefore, the investigation should be permitted to go on and police have to take it to a logical conclusion. In my view, no exceptional circumstances to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR are made out in this case.

In case the police files final report against the petitioner on conclusion of investigation it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the final report in appropriate proceedings or to seek discharge, if he is advised so. All observations in this order are made for the limited purpose of deciding this Crl.M.C and same shall not cause any prejudice to the contentions available to the petitioner.

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.