IMPORTANT POINT
Taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint or committing a complaint for trial to the Court of Session on the premise that the same is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, are powers to be exercised by the Magistrate with utmost care and caution and after due application of mind, for the same would have serious repercussions on the rights of the accused

ORDER :

Annexure-D private complaint and all further proceedings thereon including S.C. No.499 of 2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, are under challenge in this proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The petitioners who are husband and wife are the accused in Annexure-D private complaint as also in S.C. No.499 of 2016.

2. The first respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The first respondent and the accused who are Government servants are residing in adjacent houses. On 08.06.2015, the first respondent gave an information to Angamaly Police alleging that the accused have insulted and humiliated her at her place of residence on 02.06.2015 by calling her caste name. A crime was accordingly registered by the police against the accused on the same day as Crime No.1115 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act), as it stood then. While the investigation in the case was progressing, on 06.07.2015, the first respondent instituted Annexure-A private complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Angamaly. The allegation in the First Information Statement given by the first respondent, on the basis of which Crime No.1115 of 2015 was registered and the allegation in Annexure-A private complaint are one and the same. In Annexure-A private complaint, the first respondent did not, however, disclose the registration of Crime No.1115 of 2015 and the investigation conducted thereon. On 09.07.2015, the learned Magistrate forwarded Annexure-A private complaint to Angamaly Police for investigation, invoking the power under Section 156(3) of the Code. On the basis of the said direction, another crime was registered by Angamaly Police against the accused as Crime No.1302 of 2015. Annexure-B is the First Information Report in the said case. Having noticed that Crime No.1115 of 2015 has been registered on the same allegations and the investigation in the said case was progressing, Annexure-C closure report was filed by the Police in Annexure-B crime on 10.07.2015. On 30.07.2015, the first respondent filed Annexure-D private complaint before the very same court alleging that Annexure-C closure report was filed without conducting any investigation. In Annexure-D private complaint also, there is no reference about Crime No.1115 of 2015 and the investigation conducted thereon. In Annexure-D private complaint, the court issued summons to the accused and committed the case for trial to the Special Court under Section 209(a) of the Code. Annexure-E is the order passed by the court in this regard on 13.06.2016. Pursuant to Annexure-E order, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the offences alleged in Annexure-D private complaint, viz, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1) (x) and 3(1)(xv) of the Act as it stood then, and issued summons to the petitioners. As noted, the petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-D private complaint and all further proceedings thereon.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that insofar it was disclosed in Annexure-C report that Annexure-B case was closed in the light of Crime No.1115 of 2015 and the investigation thereon, the learned Magistrate ought to have ascertained the fate of the investigation in Crime No.1115 of 2015 before proceeding further with Annexure-D private complaint. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-E order being one issued without ascertaining the said fact, the same is unsustainable in law. It was also argued by the learned counsel that even otherwise, the allegations do not disclose any offence, particularly the offences punishable under the Act.

5. On being asked as to the fate of the investigation in Cri