ROJI THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 to 10 and 12 to 17 in C.C.No.131 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Erattupetta. They face allegations, inter alia, under Section 143 and 386 read with 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons in that case, in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2ndrespondent, is that they were members of an unlawful assembly of persons, who indulged in culpable overt acts against the complainant/2ndrespondent herein. The elephant belonging to the 2ndrespondent was allegedly responsible for the death of a person. The members of the unlawful assembly allegedly collected in the house of the 2ndrespondent and indulged in wanton acts of violence in an attempt to compel and coerce the defacto complainant and the members of his family to part with an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the brother of the deceased.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against all the petitioners. Counsel points out that in so far as the 11th accused is concerned, this Court has already invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in so far as it relates to the said 11thaccused by Annexure-A4 order. The learned counselforthepetitioners submitsthataccused8and 17are in the same position as accused No.11 in whose favour, Annexure-A4 order has been passed. There is absolutely no specific allegation against accused 8 and 17 except that they have been shown in the cause title as accused 8 & 17 and in the body of the complaint they are generally referred to under the generic expression " ". There is no other allegations whatsoever against accused 8 and 17. In these circumstances, following thesame logical reasoning as in Annexure- A4, petitioners 8 and 17, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners, are entitled to have the proceedings against them quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as against accused 1 to 7,9,10and12 to 16also,proceedings are liable to be quashed for the reason that the allegations, even if accepted in toto, cannot justifiably lead to an inference of guilt against the said petitioners.The counsel relies on the fact that as a matter of fact the allegation is about a claim for compensation in respect of death of the brother of accused 14, who was killed by an elephant belonging to the complainant.There was no unlawful assembly or any contumacious culpable activity. Superior police officials were present. Local M.L.A and President of the Panchayat were also present. In their presence, there was a voluntary payment of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation to the relatives of the deceased and allegations are being falsely raised now after the dispute was settled and paymentwaseffected,itisurged. The counsel furthersubmits that even though overt acts are specifically alleged as against accused 1 to 7, 10 and 12 to 16 in the body of the complaint, such allegations are not supported by the sworn statements of the complainant and his brother who were examined before cognizance was taken.