ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the accused in a crime registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thenhippalam Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 118 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, for short K.P. Act. Petitioner while riding a motor bike used a mobile phone, is the gist of the accusation imputed to register the crime against him for the aforesaid offence. Annexure A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. of the crime. Going through the statement of Sub Inspector of Police, which forms part of Annexure A1 F.I.R, the factual basis for registration of the crime is the detection of petitioner riding the motor bike recklessly, conversing in a mobile phone during such riding. Petitioner's vehicle was stopped and he was directed to report at the station with the vehicle. Thereafter the crime was registered over the aforesaid incident, is the statement of the Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner has got a different version that his vehicle was seized at a different place while it was parked beside a Madrassa. For disposal of this petition merit of the rival case canvassed by both sides as to which among the two versions is correct, is not required to be looked into for more than one reason. Before adverting to those aspects submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation of the crime is already over and a report filed before the court indicting the accused for the offence under Section 118 (e) of the K.P Act, is also to be taken note of. Learned Public Prosecutor also states that cognizance of the offence on the report being taken the case has been numbered as C.C. No. 505/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi. Section 118 of the K.P. Act deals with penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger. The offences imputed under that section shall be liable to be penalized, on conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years with fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) or with both. Clause (e) of the section deals with violation of public order or danger by a person who "knowingly does any act which causes danger to public or failure in public safety.

(2.) THE question to be considered is whether on the fact situation presented the offence imputed under Section 118 (e) could be proceeded against the petitioner - the accused. Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act contains a specific penal provision when a vehicle is driven by a person dangerously. Even assuming that using a mobile phone while driving or riding of a vehicle would amount to driving dangerously, where a penal provision is covered by Section 184 under the M.V. Act, that alone will apply. There is no case that using mobile phone while riding the bike, even if that case is accepted as true, the petitioner has caused danger to public or failure in public safety. So far as the offence covered under Section 184 of the M.V. Act if a driver of the vehicle drives it dangerously he can be arrested by a Police Officer in uniform only if it was done in his presence and where there was failure on his part to furnish his address. In such circumstance that Police Officer is also competent to seize the vehicle driven by him. If we go by the statement of the Sub Inspector of Police in the present case, forming part of Annexure A1 F.I.R., the rider has given his address correctly when he was questioned by that officer. Then the question of seizure of his vehicle at a later stage in the given facts of the case did not at all arise, that too for an offence which would fall under Section 184 of the M.V. Act. Registration of the F.I.R. under Section 118 (e) of the K.P. Act as if the petitioner had done a dangerous act in grave violation of public order or in failure of public safety, since he used a mobile phone while riding a vehicle, is totally misplaced. That penal provision can be applied only in a case where a person does any act which causes danger to public. No statutory provision has been brought to my notice to hold that use of a mobile phone while driving or riding a vehicle would amount to a dangerous act to the public. May be it will fall as an offence covered by Section 184 having regard to the public safety to be ensured in the plying of motor vehicles through public roads. No offence as covered under Section 118(e) of the K.P. Act has been made out against the petitioner in the case. In such circumstances, criminal proceedings of the case numbered as C.C. No. 505/2012, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, arising from the report filed in Annexure A1 crime against the petitioner are quashed invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.