Saranya vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) to quash Annexure-I final report in Crime No.761/2020 of Balussery Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.1347/2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Perambra.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant materials including the final report and witness statements.

As per the final report, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) on the premise that at about 13 hours on 14.03.2020, the 2nd accused herein wrongfully restrained the second witness and beat him using his hands and the 1st accused kicked the first witness by the time. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. There was delay of 5 months in lodging the F.I.R since the occurrence was on 14.03.2020 and crime was registered on 01.08.2020. The second challenge was regarding the date of occurrence and according to the petitioners, even though as per the charge sheet the incident took place on 14.03.2020, the defacto complainants in their earlier statements stated that the incident occurred on 15.03.2020 and there was correction in the date of the incident at the instance of the police.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that those are matters to be addressed during trial and for the said reasons, quashment of the case as such is not permissible where witness Nos.1 and 2 categorically given statement supporting the occurrence. On perusal of the F.I.R and final report, there is a correction in the date of occurrence in the charge sheet, as pointed out. But CW1 and CW2, who are the victims of crime, given statement supporting the occurrence on 14.03.2020 and CW3 and CW4 supported the occurrence, being eye witnesses. Other witnesses also supported the prosecution case. CW8, Doctor Ashwin Ravindran, was cited by the prosecution to prove the wound certificate showing treatment of witnesses 1 and 2.

Even though delay and contradiction, if any, in the statement of the informant are matters which could be pointed out during trial, on an overall evaluation of the materials available, the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie, warranting further proceedings by way of trial and in such a case quashment of the complaint cannot be considered.

Hence this Crl.M.C fails and is dismissed accordingly.