Dismissed

Nadeera v. Peethambaran

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1301/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. dismissing a complaint for assault, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The Court upheld the lower Magistrate's finding that a 10-month delay and lack of prior complaints negated sufficient ground to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed; the order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. dismissing the complaint was upheld.

Nadeera Vs Peethambaran — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1301 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CMP.2162/2011 of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

NADEERA,

¶9

AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.NOORMUHAMMED, NOCHUR

¶10

KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

COMPLAINANT(S)/ACCUSED-STATE:

¶13

1. PEETHAMBARAN

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD.

¶15

2. JAMEELA (WPC 5032)

¶16

PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶17

3. SUGUNA (WPC 5020)

¶18

PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶19

4. ANVARBASHA, AGED 35 YEARS,

¶20

KIZHAKKETHALA, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD.

¶21

5. KAJAHUSSAIN, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶22

S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, KIZHAKKETHALA, KODUVAYOOR PALAKKAD.

¶23

6. KUNJAN, AMIN,

¶24

MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶25

7. STATE OF KERALA,

¶26

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶27

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶31

-----------------------------------Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012

¶32

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The complainant in C.M.P. No.2162/2011 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur, is the revision petitioner. She filed the complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506(i), 323, 427 and 120(B) read with 149 of I.P.C. against the respondents herein. The gist of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant along with her family members are residing in Koduvayoor Amsom and Desom. Her father-in-law is conducting a shop in building number 1/326 of Koduvayoor Gramapanchayat and it abuts the Pudunagaram-Koduvayoor public road. In relation to the said shop room RCP.No. 24/2005, was pending before the Rent Control Court, Chittur. E.P.No. 267/2008 was also pending before the Munsiff Court, Chittur for eviction of the shop room. An order of delivery passed on 06.02.2010 and against which

¶35

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -2-

¶36

A.S.No. 41/2010 was filed before the District Court, Palakkad. I.A. No. 229/2010 moved in that appeal for staying the order dated 06.02.2010 was allowed. The allegation is that the 6^th respondent along with respondents 2 and 3 came to the shop and abused the petitioner by using filthy languages and the 3^rd respondent slapped on her cheeks. It is alleged that she had sustained injuries. It is further alleged that a mobile phone belonging to the complainant was forcefully taken from her and was destroyed.

¶37

The 6^th respondent herein is the Amin of Munsiff Court, Chittur. Respondents 1 to 3 are respectively the Sub Inspector of Police of Pudunagaram Police Station and Women Police constables attached to that police station. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the building in question.

¶38

Revision Petitioner herein was examined as CW1

¶39

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -3-

¶40

and the other two witnesses were examined as CW2 and CW3 respectively. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is challenging the said order dated 03.05.2012, that this revision petition has been filed.

¶41

Admittedly, the complaint was filed about 10 months after the date of alleged incident viz; only on 04.04.2011. According to the complainant on account of the assault by respondents 1 to 3 and 6 she suffered mental illness and was under treatment. In fact, that was assigned as the reason for filing the complaint. In this context, it is to be noted that the revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C. No. 303/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur itself. In that case, the petitioner stands indicted for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC in connection with the same incident. The revision petitioner and the other accused persons appeared before

¶42

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -4-

¶43

the court on 07.10.2010. Thereafter, that case was posted on 10.01.2011, 10.05.2011 and to subsequent dates. The learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration of the fact that the revision petitioner and her sisters who are the accused persons in Crime 58/2010 of Puthunagaram Police Station were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkad, and they did not make any complaint of assault by the respondent herein before the learned Magistrate. The revision petitioner herein stated that it is only because of the threat of the Police that no such complaint was made before the learned Magistrate.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the complaint was dismissed solely on the ground of the delay in filing the complaint. Evidently, the learned Magistrate had examined the complainant and the witnesses on oath. The contention of the petitioner is that, having taken their

¶45

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -5-

¶46

statements on oath, the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. whilst, ought to have conducted an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before proceeding with the case further. A perusal of Section 202 of the Code would reveal that on receipt of a complaint of an offence by a Magistrate, of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192 he may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or there is any sufficient ground for proceeding. True that a perusal of the said provision would reveal that in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the concerned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, then an enquiry under Section 202 is

¶47

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -6-

¶48

mandatory. Thus, a perusal of Section 202 Cr.P.C. would show that such an enquiry is mandatory only in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the concerned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. There is no such case for the revision petitioner. In other cases, evidently, it is not mandatory to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The wordings “the result of the enquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202” employed in Section 203 Cr.P.C. would make the said position more clear. I have already adverted to the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. There is no medical evidence to show that she had sustained injuries in the alleged incident. As rightly noted by the learned Magistrate the revision petitioner and other accused persons did not make any complaint of assault against the respondent when they were produced before the Judicial First Class

¶49

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -7-

¶50

Magistrate, Mannarkad in connection with Crime No. 58/2010 of Pudunagaram Police Station. That apart, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur itself the revision petitioner and the other accused persons in C.C. No. 303/2010 entered appearance on 07.10.2010 on receiving summons. That case which was registered against the revision petitioner and the others for offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was posted to 10.01.2011 and 10.05.2011 and to subsequent dates. At no point of time, the revision petitioner made any such complaint. The delay of 10 months or thereabouts in filing the present complaint carrying the allegation of commission of offences under Sections 354, 506(i), 323, 427 and 120(B) read with Section 149 I.P.C. in the said circumstances it was sufficient to view the case of the petitioner with suspicion. The reasons recorded were thus sufficient for the learned Magistrate to

¶51

Crl. R.P. No. 1301 of 2012 -8-

¶52

form an opinion regarding absence of sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. In the said circumstance, after careful consideration of the impugned order I am not inclined to accept the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fit case warranting interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. This revision petition is, therefore, liable to be failed and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

/True copy/

¶56

P. A. to Judge

¶57

Nadeera v. Peethambaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeera v. Peethambaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala

Kishor T.P Vs M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

K.Jayendran Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs Girish Kumar

Girish Babu Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Kareem Vs State of Kerala