SABARI SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.553/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, which arose out of the final report in crime 914/2018 of Palarivattom police station. That crime was registered on 30.06.2018 at 17.30 hours on the basis of an incident happened at 11.00 a.m. that day. The basis of the crime was the first information statement given by Siddique, who is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The first information statement indicates that, that day he was entrusted with the job of taking remand prisoners to Courts from the District Jail, Kakkanad; they were taking remand prisoners in police bus KL-01-BL-7018. They had carried the prisoners including the accused in NIA cases to various courts. Near the Pipeline road at Palarivattom, a Volkswagen car KL-01-BJ-5142 overtook them, stopped across the bus in front and blocked its forward movement. When he got down from the bus and asked the driver of the car why he had stopped the car in front of the bus and informed that they were carrying remand prisoners to Courts, he told them that the police bus had hit on the right portion of the car and did not stop the vehicle. Then he advised him to take the number of the bus and the telephone number of the driver and give a complaint to the traffic police station at Edappally. But he did not oblige and stopped the car in front of the bus causing obstruction to other vehicles also and blocked the road. Then the traffic police was informed and they came and removed the car and then only they could take the bus ahead. Due to the obstruction caused by the driver of the car they could not take the remand prisoners on time before Courts. On that basis the crime was registered and after investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam alleging offence under Sections 341, 283 and 353 of the IPC.

(2.) Now the petitioner, who is the accused, wants to quash the proceedings in C.C.553/2018. According to the learned counsel, the incident was not as narrated by the informant. An offence under Section 353 IPC cannot lie against the petitioner. That day when he was moving in his car from east to west, the driver of the police bus KL-01-BL-7018 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Alinchuvadu, overtook him and due to the rashness and negligence the bus scraped on the right hand side of the car and caused him a loss of Rs.8,000/-. Even after the incident the bus was not stopped and then he followed the bus and near the Pipeline road, overtook the bus and asked the driver about the incident and told to park the bus on the side of the road; then he was told to give a complaint to the police. That was how Annexure-A3 case as crime No.4189/2018 of Ernakulam City Traffic East police station was registered against the driver of the bus. The police had also misbehaved with him; he was taken to Palarivattom police station and then only he realised that a crime was registered against him, without any basis; without recording his arrest, he was made to spend the whole night in the station which amounts to illegal detention. On 01.07.2018 Sunday, he was arrested and produced before Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. Now he has been falsely implicated in the case, which is sought to be quashed. The learned counsel also produced a photograph of the car showing that there are scratches on the right front side of the car.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decisions reported in Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala [1981 KLT 475] and Durga Prasad and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KHC 704] to buttress the contention that so long as the petitioner did not use any criminal force against the police official, offence under Section 353 will not lie against him. So he has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.