JOMES JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is an IT professional. He is the Senior Associate (Operations) at Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Bangalore. He has been arrayed as the 4th accused in C.C. No.291/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha. By this petition, he seeks to quash the entire proceedings pending against him in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution allegation is that on 6.6.2018 at about 4 pm, the petitioner along with rest of the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, indulged in rioting and caused annoyance to the public in front of Pulimoottil Textiles at Thodupuzha. By their acts, the accused are alleged to have committed offence under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the facts are otherwise. The learned counsel would refer to Annexure-A2 and it is argued that marriage of the petitioner with one Neethu was scheduled to be held on 10.06.2018 at 10 am at St.George's Jacobite Syrian Church, Palakuzha. The petitioner along with his family members and family members of his fiancee had gone to the Pulimoottil Textiles on 6.6.2018 for purchasing clothes. At about 3 pm, the 1st accused in the aforesaid crime one Mujeeb Rahman, claiming to be the lover of his fiancee, came to the textile shop with accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are his friends. His fiancee left his company and joined the 1st accused. The 5th accused in the instant crime, who is none other than the brother of his fiancee, tried his best to dissuade his sister from going with the 1 st accused. This led to an altercation between accused Nos.1 to 3 on one side and the 5th accused on the other side. The petitioner and his family stood dumbstruck by the unexpected turn of events. The entire incident was recorded in the C.C.T.V placed inside the textile shop. The police were summoned by the shop owners and as the girl was a major, she left the place in the company of the 1 st accused. The incident was widely reported in the major newspapers and the learned counsel placed reliance on Annexures-A3 and A3(a) to substantiate his contention. It is further submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have pleaded guilty of the offence as they had nothing to lose. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he has been arrayed as accused on a mistaken premise. The entire proceeding is a clear abuse of process, contends the learned counsel.