LAKSHMANA KUNJHAN Vs. C R SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in P. E. 5 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Kozhikode. The proceedings against him were initiated on a private complaint The gist of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a resident of Purakkadi amsom in South Wynad. At 2 P M. on 28-8-1975, two constables of the Batheri Police station came to her residence and took her to the police station. There were two officers of the Crime Branch. She was kept in the lock up. At 11-30 P.M. she was removed to the Batheri Rest house. Two officers of the Crime Branch questioned her about the whereabouts of Damodaran Master and Madhu Master, the study classes conducted by them and also their different activities. She was herself ignorant about those things. On her failure to give proper replies, one of the officers of the Crime Branch beat her on her face and different parts of the body. She was later on removed to the lock up of the Batheri Police station. At 9 P.M on the next day, herself and others in the lock-up were taken in a p lice van and on enquiry, she was told that they were being taken for being murdered. The police van stopped near the Nadakkavu police station. Those who were taken along with her got down at the Nadakkavu police station while she herself was taken to the Vanitha Police station. She was interrogated by the same officers of the Crime Branch at the Vanitha Police station also and an elderly officer asked her to remove her saree. She did not. There was another young officer who insisted for the removal of her saree She obeyed. She was again asked about the whereabouts of Madhu Master and was removed to another room where there was an elderly man under the influence of liquor. He hit her head against the wall. She was made to sit on the floor and to stretch her legs. The young officer stood on her knees and asked another man to hit her on the sole of her feet. While the beating was going on, she was again interrogated. After continued torture, she was allowed to wear her saree. She was warned that she would be burnt to death the next day unless she told them the truth. The next day, during night two Vanitha constables came to her and told her that she was wanted by their officer. Though she was not in a position to walk, she was dragged to the place where the accused was sitting. She was thereafter taken in the van to Chakkarathukulam Crime Branch-II Office and put in a room. There were Muhammadan, Bhaskaran, Aravindan and others who were in the van while she was brought to the Batheri police station. The accused who was there asked her to remove the saree. She removed the saree. Then he wanted the skirt to be removed. She complied. Thereafter the accused wanted her to remove the underwear. She refused. The accused then caught hold of her hairlock and hit her head against the wall. When she persisted in her refusal to remove the underwear, the accused tried to remove it, but he could not. She was then asked to stand near the wall facing the wall. The accused beat her with a stick beneath the knee. She fell down. Another person made her sit leaning on the wall. As she sat, a man stood on her knees and the accused started beating on the sole of her feet. During the process of beating, she was shown a number of photographs and was asked to identify them. After beating, the accused asked the policemen present that she should not be let off and she should be beaten until she spoke out everything. Beating followed and she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was in the Vanitha police station. The Vanitha constables told her that the person who beat her was Lakshmana, the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, the accused in the case. Thereafter, she was removed to the Control Room where her photographs were taken. Finally, after a few days, she was removed to the Central Jail at Cannanore. She was a detenu there for 1 1/2 years under 'MISA'. She was having marks of injury as a result of the torture at the hands of the accused and other police officers. She could not pursue her routine work for two or three months. She was under treatment by the medical officer attached to the Cannanore prison. A scar which was the result of the injuries sustained by her is visible even now. The complainant is not in a position to attend to any work. It was as per the directions of the accused that she was removed to the police station and subjected to bodily pain. The complaint was delayed because she could not walk after her release. According to the complainant, the accused committed offences punishable under S.331, 344, 354 and 365 read with S.109 IPC.

(2.) After the sworn statement of the complainant was taken, two witnesses Muhammad Ali and Girish were examined. The case was registered as P.E. 5 of 1977. The accused after his appearance filed a petition seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that no sanction had been obtained under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While the above petition was pending before the Trial Court, the accused hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' filed the present petition under S.482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in P.E. 5 of 1977 on the ground that no sanction under S.19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been obtained. Complaint, according to the petitioner, was filed with the intention of vexing and harassing him. There was inordinate delay in filing the complaint which will show that the complaint is ill motivated. The complaint is directed only against the petitioner and the complainant has not taken any steps against the other persons, who according to her, bad also tortured her It is also mentioned that there is material discrepancy between the case of the complainant in the complaint and that spoken to by her in her sworn statement. The complaint itself shows that the case in connection with which she was interrogated was being investigated by the Crime Branch and the petitioner bad nothing to do with it. The proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of court. There are, thus, according to the petitioner, sufficient reasons for quashing the complaint.

(3.) S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 corresponds to S.561A of the Code of 1898. It is now settled law that the inherent power of the High Court can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases; but ordinarily such proceedings will not be interfered with at the interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court, in R. P Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) has referred to some of the cat gory of cases where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised in quashing proceedings pending in subordinate courts and has summarised the law as follows: