Vasavan And Ors vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.912 of 2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 341 read with 34 of IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the Scooter workshop of CW1 (de facto complainant) and assaulted him. The petitioners allege that Crime No.558 of 2005, which is the basis for C.C.No.912 of 2005, was falsely foisted on them due to the animosity of certain Police officials against whom departmental action was taken at the instance of the 1st petitioner. The further contention of the petitioners is that, after examination of CWs 1 and 3 in C.C.No.912 of 2005, two other persons (sons of the 1st petitioner) were additionally impleaded as the 3rd and 4th accused. Thereupon, accused Nos.3 and 4 filed revision petition before this Court and the revision was allowed as per Annexure A3 order and those accused discharged. According to the petitioners, Annexure A3 cuts at the root of the prosecution case and therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners.

Heard Sri.Sanish C.R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor.

The contention of the petitioners having been falsely implicated due to personal animosity of certain Police officials can be appreciated only on evidence to that effect being let in. Such contention cannot form the basis for quashing the proceedings, invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The next contention based on Annexure A3 order cannot also be entertained for the reason that, accused Nos.3 and 4 were additionally impleaded by the trial court invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Annexure A3 this Court found that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist. It was found that there was nothing on record to indicate the evidence let in by PW1 to be convincing enough, for persuading the court to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The finding in Annexure A3 order being confined to the legality of the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the trial court, those findings are of no avail, as far as the petitioners are concerned.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.