RAMLA KABEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramla Kabeer, the petitioner in this case argued her case, in person, with folded hands and tears in her eyes. First of all, no litigant or lawyer need to argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law. Usually the court of law is known as 'temple of justice'. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations. But the litigants and lawyers should keep the decorum of the court while arguing the case.

(2.) As far as the present case is concerned, I think the tears in the eyes of Ramla Kabeer is genuine. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.545/2019 of Alappuzha North Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1717/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Alappuzha. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Ss. 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Sec. 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. The defacto complainant in this case is the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Alappuzha. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 7/4/2019, the defacto complainant was conducting patrol duty in the official vehicle along with constables and when the vehicle reached at Thathamppally, the petitioner called him in his official mobile number and after identifying him as Circle Inspector of Police, North Police Station Alappuzha, threatened him by using abusive words. The defacto complainant disconnected the phone. Thereafter, again at 3.14 pm, the petitioner called him in the very same mobile number and abused him. Again he disconnected the phone. Thereafter, at 3.15 pm, he called the defacto complainant for identifying her and again she used abusive words. It is submitted that subsequently at 3.20 pm and 4.45 pm, the petitioner again abused and threatened the defacto complainant. As the petitioner abused and threatened the defacto complainant, it is submitted that the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences. Annexure A is the F.I.R and Annexure B is the final report. Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.MC is filed.

(3.) The petitioner, Ramla Kabeer, submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. According to her, she approached the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha by filing a complaint on 25/3/2019 alleging that in the neighbouring property, a prayer hall of the Penta Costal Society is being conducted causing noise pollution in high decibel. The Superintendent of Police directed the defacto complainant herein to conduct an inspection. Thereafter on 7/4/2019, when the sound from the prayer hall became unbearable, it is submitted that, she called the defacto complainant in his official phone to know about the outcome of the complaint and at that time he abused the petitioner by making unnecessary and unwanted remarks. Hence the petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha against the defacto complainant as evident by Annexure - C. Annexure - D is the receipt showing the submission of Annexure - C complaint dtd. 8/4/2019. The petitioner also filed a complaint before the Police Complaints Authority as well as Inspector General of Police against the defacto complainant. Annexure - E is the complaint submitted to the Inspector General of Police and Annexure - F is the receipt showing the submission of Annexure - E complaint. Annexure - G is the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the Police Complaints Authority and Annexure - H is the receipt showing the submission of Annexure - G complaint. It is submitted that, as a matter of fact the defacto complainant is not having any track record in the field and several complaints are pending against him at the instance of public. Annexure - I newspaper report dtd. 12/4/2019 and Annexure - J newspaper report dtd. 9/4/2019 were produced to show that the defacto complainant is a person continuously doing illegal activities. The Public Prosecutor supported the final report and submitted that, this is a matter of evidence and this Court may not pass any order quashing the proceedings. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has to prove the case before the trial court at the time of evidence.