RATHEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Crl.M.Cs. arise from C.C. No.206/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 427, 294(b) and 34 of IPC, C.C. No.300/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, C.C. No.1705/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC and C.C. No.2051/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 451, 294(b), 506(1), 323 & 354 of IPC respectively, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Pathanamthitta. The 1st petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2271/2016 is the common accused in all the cases. All the criminal cases arise from criminal proceedings launched by the same de facto complainant, who is the brother of the father of the common petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that all the criminal cases are initiated as a sequel to a property dispute between the close relatives. It is alleged by the common petitioner Ratheesh Kumar that, he is employed in Military service and is sought to be falsely and maliciously implicated by the de facto complainant. The contention is that whenever he comes on leave, he is falsely implicated in one case or another. It causes considerable mental trauma and also affects his career prospects, it is contended. There is a further allegation that the Dy.S.P. of the local jurisdiction is colluding with the de fact complainant and at his instance, after the registration of the various criminal cases, which allegedly have a tinge of a civil nature, Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against Ratheesh Kumar. Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings was the subject matter of Crl.M.C. No.3382/2015. In that Crl.M.C. this Court had occasion to take note of the entire facts and Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings were quashed with liberty to the SDM to take fresh action after complying with the statutory formalities. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, at the instance of the Police, attempts were made to squeeze out money from Ratheesh Kumar and he laid a complaint before the Vigilance. It trapped one Tajudeen, a CPO attached to the local Police station. According to the petitioners herein, Tajudeen was deputed by the above Dy.S.P. The relief sought in all the Crl.M.CS. is to quash the respective final reports laid by the Investigating agency on ground of malafides.

(3.) The contesting respondents have appeared through counsel and opposed the applications. Heard both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor.