The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a private complaint. The court held the new filing was a second complaint with no fresh materials, especially after a prior refer report deemed the incident fabricated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1794 of 2009()
-----------------------------CRMP.3260/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD
REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT
---------------------------------------------------V.K.SREENIVASAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VASCO RUBBER & TIRE COMPANY (P) LTD., REGD.OFFICE, KALLIYARA BUNGALOW, KALLIYARA ESTATE, PADINJARE MURI, MALAMPUZHA-I VILLAGE, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.T.N.HAREENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------1. VASUDEVAN K.PANTHALAM, VAS PHARMASEUTICAL LTD., VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-19.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R8 SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL FOR R2 SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE FOR R1
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1794 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of dismissal of a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”).
Crl.R.P.No.1794/2009
2
statement of the complainant was recorded. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint and issued process to respondent Nos.1 to 7. They challenged that order in this Court in Crl.M.C.No.825 of 2001 and connected cases. This Court as per order dated 28.11.2007 taking note of the contentions raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 including the dispute regarding the building and the land set aside the order issuing process to respondent Nos.1 to 7 and directed learned magistrate to reconsider the issue. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 were given an opportunity of hearing. Learned magistrate considered the issue and by the impugned order held that there is no sufficient ground to proceed and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. It is contended by learned counsel that this Court set aside the cognizance earlier taken by learned magistrate only for the limited purpose of enabling respondent Nos.1 to 7 to urge their contentions but respondent Nos.1 to 7 did not produce any document to show that petitioner had no right over the building and the land in question. According to the learned counsel, respondent Nos.1 to 7 having failed to do so, learned magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the offences attributed to them.
Crl.R.P.No.1794/2009
3
disposed of. This Court has held so in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran (2009 (1) KLT 794) . In this case what is done by the petitioner is only to repeat whatever he had alleged in the first complaint which ended in refer report and its acceptance by the learned magistrate. That report has to be given due weight unless it is shown that the investigation was tardy . In this case, no attempt was made by the petitioner to show before acceptance of the refer report that investigation conducted by the police was not proper or that any material which ought to have been taken into account has not been looked into. It is in
Crl.R.P.No.1794/2009
4
the light of that, learned magistrate has refused to take cognizance against respondent Nos.1 to 7. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order requiring interference.
Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present complaint can be maintained as a second complaint without fresh materials after a refer report was accepted by the learned magistrate.
Whether the revision petition deserves interference as there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order dismissing the private complaint.
Whether the fact that the police reported the incident as a fabricated story precludes taking cognizance of the same incident in a second complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parameswaran Nair v. SurendranReferred¶29
Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran (2009 (1) KLT 794)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
V.K.SREENIVASAN
VASUDEVAN K.PANTHALAM
K.G.KURUVILA
PAPPACHI
K.M.RAVI
K.K.VELAYUDHAN
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
