Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1606 (KER)

Manoj S/o Ravindran v. Sub Inspector of Police

2025-06-09

G.GIRISH

body2025
ORDER : G.GIRISH, J. The accused in Crime No.618/2020 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station, Thrissur, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the aforesaid FIR registered against him under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(2) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989. 2. The reason stated for seeking the aforesaid relief is that, in respect of the very same crime, First Information Reports have been registered at the Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad, as well as at the Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also stated that a final report has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram, in connection with the aforesaid crime, and hence the further proceedings in Annexure-A FIR registered in Crime No.618/2020 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station, Thrissur, would result in double jeopardy to the petitioner in addition to abuse of process of law. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 4. The copy of the FIR registered at the Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad, in connection with the offences under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 506(i) of the IPC , and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, is produced by the petitioner as Annexure-E. It is evident from Annexure-E FIR that the Mananthavady Police registered the aforesaid crime upon a complaint about the alleged rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on 30 th June, 2019 in a lodge room at Thiruvananthapuram, and on October 19th & 20th, 2019 at Guruvayoor. Finding that the incidents which gave rise to the aforesaid crimes took place within the limits of Guruvayoor and Thampanoor Police Stations, the Mananthavady Police sent the copies of the aforesaid FIR to the Guruvayoor Temple Police Station and Thampanoor Police Station for proceeding against the petitioner in connection with the respective crimes committed within the jurisdictional area of those Police Stations. Accordingly, Annexure-A FIR was registered by the Guruvayoor Temple Police Station in connection with the rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor, within the limits of the said Police Station on October 19th and 20th, 2019. Accordingly, Annexure-A FIR was registered by the Guruvayoor Temple Police Station in connection with the rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor, within the limits of the said Police Station on October 19th and 20th, 2019. So also, the Thampanoor Police of Thiruvananthapuram District registered Annexure-C FIR in connection with the rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on 30th June 2019 within the limits of Thampanoor Police Station. However, Annexure-C FIR also contained reference about the rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on October 19th & 20th, 2019, at Guruvayoor. Annexure-D final report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram City, also contained the reference about the rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on October 19th & 20th, 2019, at Guruvayoor. 5. According to the petitioner, the court concerned, which is to conduct trial of the crime mentioned in Annexure-D final report, will be dealing with the crime registered against him vide Annexure-A FIR of the Guruvayoor Temple Police Station also, and hence the continuance of the investigation and other proceedings by the Guruvayoor Police would be an abuse of process of law. It is for the above reason that the petitioner seeks the quashment of Annexure-A FIR. 6. At the time of arguments, it is brought to my notice that the trial of the case as per Annexure-D final report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Fort Sub Divison, Thiruvananthapuram, is now pending before the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases, Nedumangad, as S.C.No.148/2023. The petitioner did not care to produce the court- charge framed in that case to show that trial in respect of the offence of rape committed by the petitioner on October 19th & 20th, 2019, within the limits of Guruvayoor Police Station, is also being conducted by the Special Court at Nedumangad. It is not possible to have the trial for the aforesaid offence conducted at the Special Court at Thiruvananthapuram, since it is a totally independent offence which took place at Guruvayoor after about 3½ months from the date of commission of the crime at Thiruvananthapuram. It is not possible to have the trial for the aforesaid offence conducted at the Special Court at Thiruvananthapuram, since it is a totally independent offence which took place at Guruvayoor after about 3½ months from the date of commission of the crime at Thiruvananthapuram. The mere fact that Annexure-D final report and Annexure-C FIR prepared by the Thiruvananthapuram Police contained reference about the rape committed by the petitioner at Guruvayoor after 3½ months from the date of commission of the crime at Thiruvananthapuram, does not mean that the above records covered the investigation relating to the offence committed by the petitioner at Guruvayoor. Nor could it be expected that the court concerned might have framed charges against the petitioner in respect of the above said offence committed by him at Guruvayoor. This is because of the reason that the offences committed by the petitioner on June 30th at Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter, on October 19th & 20th at Guruvayoor, cannot be said to be forming part of the same transaction. Both the above offences are totally unconnected and independent in respect of the place of occurrence, time of occurrence as well as the mode of commission of crime. That apart, a reading of Annexure-D final report in its entirety would make it clear that it deals with the offence committed at the lodge room in Thiruvananthapuram in the night of 30 th June, 2019, and that the place of occurrence of the offence committed by the petitioner at Guruvayoor on October 19th & 20th, 2019, is not at all highlighted in the aforesaid final report. Therefore, the Trial Court at Nedumangad in Thiruvananthapuram, cannot be expected to have framed charges in respect of the offence covered by Anneuxre-A FIR. Probably, it might be due to the said reason that the petitioner did not care to produce a copy of the charge framed by the Special Court at Nedumangad for the perusal of this Court. At any rate, the apprehension of the petitioner about the double jeopardy which he might have to face, could be allayed by giving appropriate directions to the Special Court in this regard. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on so many judicial precedents about the impermissibility of registration of more than one FIR in respect of the same crime. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on so many judicial precedents about the impermissibility of registration of more than one FIR in respect of the same crime. The aforesaid decisions are not discussed in this order since the facts and circumstances of this case dealt with hereinabove, do not cover such a situation. Annexure A FIR registered by the Guruvayoor Police, and Annexure C FIR registered by the Thiruvananthapuram Police, are in respect of separate and unconnected offences of rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on two different occasions at two different locations. Thus the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are having no applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. As a conclusion to the above discussion, I find that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in this petition, cannot be allowed. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed, however, with the following directions to the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Nedumanagad: (i) The Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Nedumangad, shall ensure that the trial in Annexure-D final report is confined to the offence committed at Thiruvananthapuram. (ii) If the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Nedumangad, had framed charge in Annexure-D final report in connection with the incident happened at Guruvayoor also, necessary steps shall be taken for the alteration of charge in accordance with law, following the true spirit of this order.