Quashed

Manoj Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2022Crl.MC/4080/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Magistrate must read the police final report before taking a protest complaint on file to warrant issuing process. It quashed an order that failed to consider the final report and remanded the matter for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Annexure A5) is set aside. The court below is directed to pass a fresh order within one month after going through the final report and other records.

Manoj Philip Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.2162/2014 OF Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha CC 3031/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCISED:

¶10

1MANOJ PHILIP
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. ABRAHAM PHILIP,
09 WILLOW DRIVE, FORTGALE,
MTHATHA, EASTERN CAPE,
5100, SOUTH AFRICA , PIN - 5100
2ABRAHAM PHILIP
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. PHILIP, 09 WILLOW DRIVE, FORTGALE,
MTHATHA, EASTERN CAPE,
5100, SOUTH AFRICA, PIN - 5100
3LEELAMMA PHILIP
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. ABRAHAM PHILIP,
09 WILLOW DRIVE, FORTGALE,
MTHATHA, EASTERN CAPE,
5100, SOUTH AFRICA, PIN - 5100
4SUSAMMA JAYAPRASAD
AGED 48 YEARS
CHAKRA PURAYIL, ANGADICKAL SOUTH,
CHENGANNUR VILLAGE
PIN - 689122
BY ADVS.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
AMAL AMIR ALI
RUTH K. ABY

¶11

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2SURUMI MAJI,
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. GEEYAR MAJI, BEENA COTTAGE,
MAYYANAD VILLAGE,
KOTTIYAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691571
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
R2 BY SRI.P. Thomas Geeverghese Adv.
E.S.FIROS(K/555/2014)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Annexure A5 order passed by the Judicial First Class

¶20

Magistrate Court, Chengannur (for short, the court below) is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

¶21

The 2^nd respondent herein filed a private complaint (Annexure A2) against the petitioners at the court below alleging offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered a crime against the petitioners. Annexure A3 is the FIR. After investigation, the police filed a refer report. Annexure A4 is the said report. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent filed Annexure A1 protest complaint. The court below after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C took the said complaint on file as per Annexure A5 order and issued process to the petitioners. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

¶22

I have heard Sri.Jacob P.Alex, the learned counsel for

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

the petitioners, Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

It is settled that the protest complaint filed by the

¶27

complainant against a refer report has to be treated only as objection to the final report and before issuing summons to the accused, the Magistrate is bound to scan through the final report

¶28

and also the protest complaint and take a decision whether the protest complaint has to be received on file or not and process is to

¶29

be issued to the accused. (See Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC 3374)

¶30

Annexure A5 is a cryptic order. A reading of Annexure A5 would show that the court below only perused the complainant's affidavit and documents filed along with the protest complaint as well as the statement of two witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case. The court below did not go through Annexure A4

¶31

final report at all. As stated already, it is the duty of the Magistrate to go through the final report as well before taking a

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

decision whether the protest complaint is to be taken on file or not. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Annexure A5 cannot

¶35

be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶36

The court below is directed to pass a fresh order after going through the complaint, affidavit, documents filed by the complainant along with the protest complaint, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and Annexure A4 final report. The court below shall pass orders within a period of

¶37

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 4080 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4080/2022

¶46

`PETITIONER ANNEX`	`URES`
`Annexure A1`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT` `FILED AS CMP NO. 6380/2016 BEFORE THE` `COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-` `I, CHENGANNUR`
`Annexure A2`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `07/11/2014 FILED AS CMP.NO.6511/14 BEFORE` `THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS` `MAGISTRATE-I, CHENGANNUR`
`Annexure A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.` `2162/2014 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION`
`Annexure A4`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED` `28/09/2015 IN CRIME NO. 2162/2014 OF` `CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION`
`Annexure A5`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `12.07.2017 IN CMP NO. 6380/2016 BEFORE` `THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS` `MAGISTRATE-I, CHENGANNUR`
`Annexure A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `PASSPORT NO. A01180084 ISSUED TO THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME` `AFFAIRS, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA`

¶47

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE.R2[ a]True copy of judgement dated.31.5.2022 of
JFCM-1,Chengannur

Manoj Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Philip 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

George Roby, Vs State of Kerala

Arjun Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Sadique Ali Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Subhadra Vs the State Police Chief