Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 9963 of 2012 (U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- VIBIN P.V., AGED 2 YEARS ADVOCATE, S/O. VRINDHAVAN, PARUTHEZHATH VEEDU NAJARAKKAL P.O., NAJARAKKAL VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682505. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2. THE HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA-683101.4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NAJARAKKAL-682505.5. S.I. OF POLICE (VEANS JOSEPH) NAJARAKKAL POLICE STATION NAJARAKKAL-682505. (THE ADDRESS OF R5 IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS AS PER ORDER D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2190; 2008(1)KLJ508(1)
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a complainant has a right to demand that Magistrate shall forward the complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Is it for the Magistrate to decide whether a complaint is to be forwarded for investigation by the Police? Can the Magistrate to take cognizance and conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure even if complainant seeks only for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations in the complaint with the sworn statement of the complainant makes out a prima facie case can the Magistrate dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure?. These are the relevant aspects to be decided in this revision petition.2. Revision petitioner filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irattupetta with a prayer to forward the complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Irattupetta for investigation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT661
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner, who was the Additional Private Secretary to the then Minister for Health and Family Welfare, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging Ext. Pl order issued by the Lok Ayukta and also Complaint No. 14/06, in which, the above said order has been passed. The brief facts of the case are the following :2. The Lok Ayukta received Ext. P2 petition, stated to have been filed by the President of the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.08.2005. The said forum instructed the 6th respondent, the Superintendent of Police, attached to it, to hold a discrete enquiry into the allegations contained in Ext. P2. The said Officer conducted an enquiry and filed Ext. P3 report, stating that the allegations contained in Ext. P2, against the petitioner, are substantiated by evidence. After considering the said report, the 1st respondent Lok Ayukta issued the impugned order Ext. Pl, which reads as follows:This is a complaint, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1984CriLJ717
ORDERU.L. Bhat. J.1. The complainant in Crl. M. P. No. 2360 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class No. II Trichur, who filed the complaint against Sub-Inspector of Police. Anthicad Police Station alleging offences under Sections 379 and 384. IPC. being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal P. C. has filed this criminal revision petition.2. There can be no doubt that Sub-Inspector of Police is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. The question is whether a complaint against a Sub-Inspector of police would fall within Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Criminal P. C. in which case alone sanction of the State Government will be necessary for any prosecution. The learned Magistrate took the view that Section 197(1) will apply in the case of prosecution of a Sub-Inspector of police and this view is contested by the revision petitioner.3. The main part of Sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ246; 2008(3)KLJ385
ORDERR. Basant, J.What is the import and consequence of the amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C. by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.06.06 by which the words 'and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' were introduced? Is the stipulation couched in the above language directory or mandatory? Does that stipulation apply at all to prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? If the sworn statement of all necessary witnesses cited by the complainant is recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the materials are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, should the learned Magistrate still proceed to the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and conduct a further enquiry? What would be the content and scope of such an extended enquiry in such circumstances? When does the enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. end and the enquiry under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)38; III(2005)BC238; 2005(1)KLT220
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the proceedings Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'inquiry' as defined Under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C? Is the sworn statement recorded before the Magistrate Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'evidence'? Can the affidavit filed Under Section 145 of the N.I. Act be received by a Court to proceed further without insisting on the personal appearance of the complainant? These questions of contextual relevance are thrown up for consideration in this Revision Petition.2. The complainant, in a complaint Under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate 'closing' the complaint. I extract below the impugned order:'Complainant absent. It appears that complainant is not interested to proceed with this case. The Criminal M.P. is closed'.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contends that a criminal complaint cannot be disposed of with an order like the one extracted above. The Code of Criminal Procedure spea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker1; 1961CriLJ63
Sankaran, C.J.1. The question of law raised in the first 5 references and in the next revision petition is practically the same and hence all of them were heard together. They are also disposed of by the present common order.2. Criminal Reference No. 21/57 is by the Session Judge at Alleppey and he has recommended under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the committal order which is the basis of Sessions Case No. 32/56 on the file of his Court may be quashed since it is an illegal order passed in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Clause (4) of Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ground of illegality is stated to be that the Magistrate who committed the accused to stand their trial in the Sessions Court, has passed the order of committal without examining all the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet filed by the police as witnesses to the actual commission of the alleged offence.In Crl. Ref. No. 22/57 also a similar recommendation has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker350
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this revision petition two questions were raised:first, whether Shri T. R. Velunni, District Magistrate at Trichur at the relevant time, who was also the Commissioner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, referred to hereafter as the Act, was competent to prefer the complaint and secondly, whether under the proviso (aa) to section 200, Crl. P. C. his examination by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, could have been dispensed with. I see no difficulty whatever in answering the first question against the revision petitioner, for the complaint in this case fulfils the definition of the term 'complaint' in Section 4(1)(h), Crl. P. C. and the Magistrate is competent under Section 190(1)(a), Crl. P. C., to take cognizance of the offence. This was also conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.2. On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ845
ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 56 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode, approach this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking an order of quashing Annexure A and all the proceedings thereon including Annexure-F. The above case was instituted on taking cognizance by the court below upon a complaint dated 17.4.2004 filed by the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.2. The facts which led to the above case are as follows-According to the prosecution, on 24.4.2003, at about 19.30 hours while Sri. P.P. Joy, Inspector, R.P.F., Kozhikode and party were on confidential watch at the premises of Railway Reservation Office, Kozhikode in connection with illegally procuring and selling of Railway Reservation tickets, they had found that Rajesh Anil (first accused) was moving in a suspicious manner near the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ509; 2004(1)KLT873
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Original Petitions are filed by the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the Commissioner and the previous Administrator of the Devaswom against the order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trichur in C.M.P. No 559 of 2002. By this order, the court has directed vigilance enquiry and further action on Ext. P1 complaint. Ext. P1 complaint is filed by one Suresh alleging certain allegations against the previous members of the Managing Committee and against the Administrator and Commissioner. As soon as the complaint was received, the Special Judge called for the remarks from the Commissioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.2. The complaint is filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further states that the audit was not taking place due to the mismanagement of the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Commissioner got details from the Commissioner of Guruvayur Devaswom and pa...
Tag this Judgment!