The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by MLA K.B. Ganesh Kumar, which sought to quash the case against him related to an alleged conspiracy to implicate the late Congress leader and former Chief Minister, Oommen Chandy, in the solar sexual assault case. The case is currently pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) at Kottarakkara.
Also read- Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyers Accused Of Client Abuse (lawchakra.in)
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while delivering the judgment, observed,
“Serious allegations are raised against the petitioner who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly by the 2nd respondent in which conspiracy is also alleged stating that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the 1st accused to implicate the former Chief Minister of Kerala Sri.Oommen Chandi. The former Chief Minister has passed away. Such an allegation should not be in the air because his soul will not forgive the same. The continuation of this case is necessary not only for the soul of the former Chief Minister and his bereaved family, but also to prove the integrity of the petitioner too.”
The background of the case reveals that the victim, who is also the first accused in the multi-crore solar panel scam, had accused several Congress leaders, including the late Oommen Chandy, MP Hibi Eden, AICC General Secretary K.C. Venugopal, and others, of sexually exploiting her in 2012.
Advocate Sudheer Jacob, a Congress leader, filed a private complaint before the JFCM Court, Kottarakkara, alleging a conspiracy to name Chandy in the solar sexual assault case. The complaint also included allegations of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner.
The court highlighted that the Magistrate had only considered whether there was sufficient reason to proceed with the case. It further noted that the petitioner’s contention regarding the offenses under Sections 193 IPC and 182 IPC could be raised at the time of Section 244 Cr.P.C by filing a discharge petition.
Justice Kunhikrishnan stated,
“After going through these sworn statements of the witnesses, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offense. That is more than enough at this stage to take cognizance of the offense. Moreover, whether this amounts to the offense for which the Magistrate has taken cognizance or whether any other offenses are made out, is to be decided at the stage starting from Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The court concluded by dismissing the plea, clarifying that the petitioner is free to raise all contentions at the stage of framing charge by filing a discharge petition. The Magistrate was advised to consider the available evidence at the stage of framing charges without being influenced by any observations in the current order and to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai and other advocates, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, Public Prosecutor Sreeja V., and other advocates.
