Back
Judges : K.A.MOHAMED SHAFI
Vijayakumar - Appellant
Versus
Kamarudhin And Others - Respondent
Case No : Cri. M.C. No. 2931 of 1998
Decided On : 10/09/1998
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: K.V. Sohan, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Gopakumaran Nair, S.U. Nazar, P.P.
Criminal Procedure Code - Further Investigation - Sections 379, 506(1), 323, 341 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. - Section 482 - Illegal further investigation and prosecution quashed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a leasing company, dispossessed a hirer of a vehicle due to default in payment. The hirer filed a complaint, leading to a refer report and subsequent charge-sheet. The petitioner challenged the legality of the charge-sheet and further investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the further investigation conducted by a different agency was illegal and unsustainable. It also held that the dispute was of a civil nature and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the further investigation, the nature of the dispute, and the abuse of process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and previous judgments to establish that the further investigation was illegal and that the dispute was of a civil nature, rendering the criminal proceedings an abuse of process of the court.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioner, allowing the petition.
This application under section 482 of the Crl.P.C. is filed by the 1st accused in C.C. 1052/97 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. Kattakada to quash the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings initiated against him.
2. Originally a case was registered against the petitioner and others by the Kattakada Police alleging offences punishable under Sections 379 and 506(1) read with Section 34, I.P.C. in Crime No. 177/92 on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada in C.M.P. Nos. 4627/92 which was forwarded by the Magistrate for investigation and report to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Kattakada Police after investigation filed a refer report before the Magistrate's Court since the dispute involved in the case was of civil nature. The Judicial First Class Magistrate by order dated 12-1-1995 accepted the refer report after giving notice to the complainant since no objection was raised by him. Subsequently on the basis of the complaint dated 6-3-1995 filed by the 1st respondent before the Chief Minister of Kerala and forwarded by the Chief Minister to the Director General of Police for necessary action, and as directed the C.B.C.I.D. Special Squad registered the case by re-numbering C.B.C.I.D. Crime No. 81/CR/95. The Dy. S.P., C.B.C.I.D., Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram conducted the investigation and filed a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada. After completing the investigation he laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and other alleging offences punishable under Ss. 341. 323 and 506(1) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and deleting the offence punishable under section 379, I.P.C. from the original F.I.R. Accordingly the Judicial/First Class Magistrate registered the case in C.C. 1052/97 against the petitioner and others.
3. According to the petitioner, he is an employee of Prakash Leasing Private Ltd. and working as Deputy General Manager (Recoveries). The company had given possession of a Mini Lorry bearing No. KL-01-9306 on hire-purchase basis to the 1st respondent as per Annexure-1 agreement and since the 1st respondent committed default to pay the instalments due in spite of demands, the company through its agent dispossessed the vehicle from the 1st respondent on 15-7-1992 and duly informed the police and the Regional Transport Officer. The 1st respondent filed complaint alleging theft before the Magistrate's Court which was forwarded to the police for investigation and after investigation the po]ice filed a refer report which was accepted by the Magistrate's Court. Subsequently a second investigation was conducted by a different agency illegally and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and others altering the original offence alleged and alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 506(1) r/w Section 34, I.P.C., in pursuance of which the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada registered C.C. 1052/97 against the petitioner and others and proceeding against them.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the local police had already conducted the investigation and filed a refer report before the competent Court, only a further investigation by the same investigating agency with the permission of the Magistrate is permissible under law and therefore, the registration of the fresh F.I.R. by the C.B.C.I.D., the investigation and the charge-sheet laid by the C.B.C.I.D. against the petitioner and others are void and illegal. He further submitted that the seizure of the vehicle by the financier in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between the hirer and the financier will not constitute any criminal offence and the dispute being of civil nature, the remedy if at all available to the 1st respondent is through the civil Court.
5. The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that in the guise of taking possessio
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
