P RAMANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in Crime No.309/04 of Vadakkencherry Police Station registered under Secs.448, 427, 294(b) and 506(1) read with Secv.34 of the IPC. They are Chairmen of the Vikasana Standing Committee, Kshemakarya Standing Committee, Vice President and Overseer respectively of the Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat. They have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the said F.I.R. registered against them.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance. Additional respondents 4 and 5 have been subsequently impleaded. Arguments have been heard of all the three counsel.

(3.) It the grievance of the petitioners that the police, in collusion with the additional respondents 4 and 5, are initiating vexatious proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners were acting only in the discharge of their official duties under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules thereunder. The 5th respondent was found to occupy a shed constructed illegally in the puramboke land belonging to the Panchayat over which she had no rights. After taking action, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules as decided by the Committee of the Panchayat, the unauthorised shed was demolished and removed. Instead of affording assistance to the Panchayat authorities, as required by law, the police officials acted hand in glove with the 5th respondent and her brother - the 4th respondent and started initiating false and vexatious proceedings against the petitioners by registering the F.I.R. in question. It is contended that the petitioners are protected by the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and that respondents 4 and 5, who have not chosen to challenge the order passed by the Panchayat directing the 5th respondent to remove the unauthorised structure, has no right in law to complain against the official duties performed lawfully by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently the Panchayat was compelled to come to this Court and seek a direction to the police to afford the requisite police assistance for enforcement of the decision in question. The learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 3/12/2004 in W.P.(c) No.28635 of 2004 passed by this Court.