Allowed

Anitha P George v. State Police Chief

Kerala HC25 May 2023WP(Crl.)/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Police to report information about anonymous malicious emails regarding her deceased husband to the Magistrate under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since the SHO sought an investigation order which was returned defective, the SHO must resubmit the report curing the defects.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent (S.H.O.) to re-submit the report to the Magistrate curing defects without delay.

Anitha P George Vs State Police Chief — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ANITHA P GEORGE

¶9

AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.LATE WILSON , VALIYAKALAMANNIL, MATHOOR P.O,
OMALLOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689647

¶10

BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEWS
ABIYA MARIYAM MATHEW
GIBI.C.GEORGE
ASHISH MATHEW JOHN
JOHNSON K.KURIEN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE POLICE CHIEF

¶13

KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS , VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

¶15

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE STATE WOMEN'S CELL, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶16

4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELAVUMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689507

¶17

5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ELAVUMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689507

¶18

6 CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 689645

¶19

7 LIBU BABUJI VARGHESE S/O BABUJI VARGHESE, PALANIKUNNATHIL, CHENNEERKKARA MATHOOR,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT : D 28, 2ND FLOOR, CHANAKYA PLACE PART -I , UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059, PIN - 689647

¶20

BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶21

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶22

2

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

PP SRI.NOUSHAD K.A

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶29

======================== W.P.(Crl.)No.94 of 2023

¶30

------------------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2023

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This writ petition seeks for the following reliefs:

¶34

I) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 5^th respondent to report the information gathered from the petitioner, which is recorded in the General Diary of Elavaumthitta Police Station as GD No.2013-07-2022 in respect of a non-cognizable offence, to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C.

¶35

ii) Pass such other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems just and necessary and that may be prayed for by the petitioner while hearing the W.P.(Crl.).

¶36

In view of the nature of order that I propose to issue,

¶37

notice to the 7^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶38

Petitioner was married to one Sri.Wilson, who died allegedly due to coronary heart disease. After the death of her husband, anonymous e-mails were allegedly sent to the Police alleging that petitioner had murdered her husband. According to the petitioner, the e-mail was sent with an intention to tarnish her image and that of her family, in front of the public and that the same amounts to a non-cognizable offence.

¶39

Sri.V.Philip Mathew and Sri.Gibi C.George, learned

¶40

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

Counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Section 155 Cr.P.C, once an information regarding a non-cognizable offence is given to an officer in charge of a Police Station, he must inform the Magistrate after entering the information in a book and thereafter, proceed to investigate, based upon the order of the Magistrate. It was also submitted that, such a course of action has not been adopted by the Police and therefore, a direction ought to be issued to act in accordance with Section 155 Cr.P.C.

¶43

Sri.K.A.Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor, referring to the statement filed on behalf of the respondent submitted that the substance of the information received by the Police was entered in the General Diary, as is evident from Annexure R4(1) and the petitioner was referred to the learned Magistrate and therefore, the Police has acted in accordance with law and nothing further remains to be done in the said case.

¶44

On a perusal of the documents produced by the respondents, it is noticed that a report was given by the Police to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta about the information received regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence. The said report filed on 29.06.2022, was however returned on 04.07.2022 by the learned Magistrate to the Sub Inspector of Police, stating that the offence made out from the statement of the witnesses is not seen mentioned.

¶45

In the decision in Anto Joseph Vs. State of Kerala

¶46

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

and others [2016 (3) KLT 309] , this Court had held that the orders for investigation can be obtained from the Magistrate under Section 155 Cr.P.C. either on the motion of the complainant himself or at the instance of the Officer in Charge of a Police Station and that there is no stipulation that the complainant himself must appear before the Magistrate. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it was contended that since the Sub Inspector of Police has already approached the learned Magistrate seeking an order of investigation, and the same was returned with an endorsement that the provision of the offence allegedly committed had not been stated, it is only essential in the interest of justice that the S.H.O himself resubmits the report, after curing the defects pointed out.

¶49

On an appreciation of the circumstances of the case, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As observed by this Court in Anto Joseph’s Case (supra) orders for investigation can be obtained either on the motion of the complainant or at the instance of the officer in charge of the Police Station. In such circumstances, when the officer in charge of a Police Station himself had approached the learned magistrate with a report regarding the non-cognizable offence, and when the same is returned noticing a defect, it is only appropriate that the Officer himself resubmits the same, after curing the said defect.

¶50

Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-cognizable offence made out is that under Section

¶51

¶52

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶53

120(o) of the Police Act, 2011, I am of the view that nature of offence that is allegedly made out, is a matter to be decided by the Officerin-Charge of the Police Station.

¶54

In view of the above, there will be a direction to the 5^th respondent to re-submit the report regarding the alleged commission of non-cognizable offence, if any, based upon the statement of the petitioner to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, after curing the defects, without any undue delay.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

sd/

¶57

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶58

jm/

¶59

WP(CRL.) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 94/2023

¶62

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1COPY OF DEATH SUMMARY OF PETITIONER'S HUSBAND
ISSUED FROM JOSCO MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,
EDAPPON
Exhibit P2COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 22-08-2020 ISSUED FROM
ELAVUMTHITTA POLICE STATION
Exhibit P3COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 17-03-2021 ISSUED
BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25-10-2021SENT
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28-02-2022 PASSED IN
W.P. (CRL ) NO.520/2021
Exhibit P6COPY OF PETITION DATED 18-02-2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
(WITHOUT ANNEXURE )
Exhibit P7COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14-06-2022 PASSED IN
W.P (CRL ) NO. 494/2022
Exhibit P8COPY OF COMPLIANCE REPORT FILED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ELAVUMTHITTA POLICE
STATION IN W.P (CRL ) NO.494/2022

Anitha P George v. State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha P George v. State Police Chief

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

Akhil Raj Pallissery, Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

V.D.Mathew Vs John v.D.*

K.M.Yousuf Vs Ahammad Kunju

M.S.Pillai Vs Meenakshi Plastic Industries

M.S.Pillai Vs Meenakshi Plastic Industries