Dismissed

Abdul Jalal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court of Ziyad Rahman A.A. J at the High Court of Kerala dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction to police to investigate private complaints. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternate statutory remedy of filing a magistrates complaint under Sections 156(3) and 200 CrPC, referencing Sakiri Va

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 156(3) and 200 CrPC.

Abdul Jalal Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1347 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL JALAL, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KASSIM, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MAMOM KIZHIVILLAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN. 695104.

¶8

BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATHIEF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN.682031 ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ATTINGAL ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN. 695101.

¶12

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN. 695101.

¶13

4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ATTINGAL ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN. 691501

¶14

5 SALAH,KUNNATHUVEEDU,MAMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN.695104

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

FOR R1 TO R4 BY ADV. M.P.PRASANTH SR PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.MC No.1347 of 2022 2

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶21

seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3, to

¶22

conduct an investigation based on Annexure-A3 and

¶23

Annexure-A4 complaints submitted by him after registering a criminal case against the 5^th respondent.

¶24

petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/from the 5^th respondent. Towards the security of

¶25

the said transaction, a blank stamp paper, signed

¶26

blank paper, and a cheque leaf were entrusted to the 5^th respondent. The aforesaid transaction occurred in 2013, and later, the 5^th respondent filed O.S.No.132/2018 before the Munsiff Court, Attingal, for the realization of an amount of Rs.5 lakhs with interest against the petitioner. Along with the said suit, the 5^th respondent produced

¶27

CRL.MC No.1347 of 2022 3

¶28

the said cheque. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid cheque was produced after fabricating the same. The petitioner submitted Annexures A3 and A4 complaints before the Police in such circumstances.

¶29

Heard Sri. T.M. Abdul Lathiff, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 to 4. After perusing the documents and hearing the arguments from either side, I am of the view that the prayer sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. This is mainly because the petitioner has ample remedy to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint to redress his grievances. In this case, apart from submitting the complaints referred to above, the petitioner has not taken any steps to file any private complaint. In Sakiri Vasu v.

¶30

CRL.MC No.1347 of 2022 4 State of U.P. and Others [(2008)2 SCC 409] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if a person has a grievance that the police station has not registered his FIR, his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.PC or other officers referred to in Section 36 of Cr.PC. Despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 of Cr.PC, his grievance persists, he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of Writ Petition or a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. As the petitioner herein has ample alternative remedy, and the same has not been exhausted even now, the

¶31

filing of this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.PC

¶32

is not proper at this stage. Therefore, I do

¶33

CRL.MC No.1347 of 2022 5 not find any justification for entertaining this

¶34

Crl.M.C in the above circumstances.

¶35

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy available to him as

¶36

mentioned above.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶39

pkk

¶40

CRL.MC No.1347 of 2022 6

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1347/2022

¶42

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure1 ANNEXURE A-1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.132/2018 DATED 13/3/2018 FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure2 ANNEXURE A-2 :- TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8/6/2016 Annexure3 ANNEXURE A-3 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22/1/2022 Annexure4 ANNEXURE A-4 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30/1/2022

Abdul Jalal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jalal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Anstein Vs the State of Kerala

Bijo Babu Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Bijo Babu Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Midhin Raj Vs State of Kerala

Bijumuhammed Vs the State of Kerala

Kunjumohammed Vs State of Kerala