RAJU THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in a pending case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamangalam. He is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 153 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code {for short "the IPC"}, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. Gist of the accusation is that he had destroyed a notice board put up by some social activists at a public place with intend to commit disruption of public peace, and, by his acts he caused loss of Rs. 500/- to the de facto complainant. Annexure A2 is a copy of the final report laid before the magistrate, Cognizance of the offences in the report taken against the accused, the case now awaits further steps for trial. Petitioner has filed the above petition to quash the criminal proceedings against him invoking under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The materials placed by the prosecuting agency do not disclose of any of the essential ingredients constituting the offences, to proceed against the petitioner, and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against him are an abuse of the process of the court, is the submission of his counsel.

(3.) Annexure A1 is the complaint given by the de facto complainant before the Circle Inspector of Police to proceed against the accused for the alleged criminal acts imputed over the destruction of a notice board. Annexure A6 is a copy of the notice affixed on such board, which was destroyed by the accused. Going through Annexure A6, it is seen that the notice put up naming the accused imputed him as an uncivilized person indulging in antisocial activities. If he does not reform, then, the people of the locality will do what is necessary, is the substance of the notice published. Such a notice published and put up in a board at a public place was torn up and destroyed by the petitioner/accused, is the case of the complainant alleging that thereby he has suffered loss of Rs. 500/-. Even assuming that the allegation raised is true and correct, still, how far the complainant or any other person could have put up a notice board in a public place, the contents of which are per se defamatory against the petitioner is also a larger issue resented on the allegation raised in the complaint. Petitioner has got a case that as against the complainant he had previously launched criminal proceedings which after investigation by the police, has led to his indictment and trial before a court. When such circumstances are canvassed of, which are not refuted, that has also to be taken note of in considering whether the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner on the complaint over the destruction of the notice board is justified.