SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in CC No.267/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad have moved this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash Annexure-2 final report in crime No.333/2021 of Kareelakulangara police station in Alappuzha district. That is a suo motu case registered by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of police of Kareelakulangara police station against petitioners on 25/6/2021 alleging offence under Sections 188, 268, 269, 278 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act. Annexure-1 FIR indicates that the petitioners were found transporting abattoir waste, chicken waste, in Leyland Dosth lorry KL-23-Q-6610, without any authorisation by the Sub Inspector near Nadappurayil Fuels in Nangyarkulangara junction, awaiting opportunity to dumb the waste in public place, on the west of the old National Highway. The Sub Inspector took the vehicle into custody along with the petitioners, the crime was registered and on conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad, where the case was taken on file as CC No.267/2021 on the above stated allegations. The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are employees of one Shamlad, who is doing business in collecting and removing abattoir waste from Kollam district and also from the limits of Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. Documents have also been produced to say that he has been authorised to collect abattoir waste from different other sources. Therefore he wanted to rebut the contention of the prosecution that such wastes were collected unauthorizedly by the petitioners. According to him, abattoir waste is a valuable raw material for manufacturing organic fertilisers, fish food etc. That day the petitioners, employees of said Shamlad, were transporting waste collected from Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam to be given to Parakkal Industries, an organic fertilizer factory in Ernakulam. At that time, under the influence of his business rivals, the 2nd respondent was illegally taking the vehicle into custody and such a crime was registered to please the rival gang. On 25/06/2021, a few persons under the leadership of one Abdullah, Altaf and Iqbal along with three identifiable persons broke the front glass of the vehicle of the petitioners. Immediately thereafter the employer of the petitioners went to Kareelakulangara police station and submitted Annexure-14 complaint. As directed by the police authorities the petitioners took the vehicle near the police station. At that time, the 2nd respondent came there, saw the vehicle parked near the police station and then abused the petitioners and threatened them to implicate them in non bailable criminal cases and thereafter a suo motu crime was registered. He was acting on behalf of the rival groups of the employer of the petitioners against which the said Shamlad had given complaints to the higher authorities. The learned counsel also submitted that Annexure-20 crime was registered at the instance of the 2nd petitioner alleging offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 427 read with 34 of the IPC. The learned counsel also asserted that these proceedings were initiated at the instance of his rival groups. On the basis of the complaint given by the employer the Inspector has already been transferred. So the learned counsel submitted that it is a false prosecution, which is liable to be quashed.