Important points:
The landlord-tenant disputes between the rival parties, the learned Magistrate should have seriously applied his judicial mind to the crucial aspects of the case and found out whether it is a fit case to grant sanction or permission for conduct of investigation by the police, as envisaged in Sec.155(2) of the Cr.P.C. The records placed for the perusal of this Court would disclose that the learned Magistrate has not made any application of mind and mechanically sanctioned by a non-speaking order

ORDER :

The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl. Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows :

“................ to quash Annexure-A final report submitted in Crime No:345/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur City taken on to the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court as C.C No:1647/2018 and allow this Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (sole accused), Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 (Station House Officer & State of Kerala). Notice has been sent to contesting respondent No.3 (lady de facto complainant) through the Inspector of Police of the area concerned, in her address as shown in the impugned criminal proceedings and it is now reported that the addressee is not in place, as she is at Dubai.

3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant First Information Report in Crime No.345/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, for offence punishable under Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, on the basis of the petition filed by the lady de facto complainant (3rd respondent). The police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-A final report/charge sheet in the said Crime No.345/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of calendar case C.C.No.1647/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thrissur.

4. The gist of the prosecution case is that earlier the petitioner was the tenant in a building owned by the 3rd respondent and that on 12.02.2018 at about 1 p.m., he after taking the screenshot of the photos of the 3rd respondent and her family members in their Facebook profile, had posted in the Facebook account of the petitioner a posting that the 3rd respondent after letting out her property without agreement and after taking advance from the petitioner, had refused to give back the advance, when the petitioner had sought for maintenance and that the people should be beware of the 3rd respondent, etc. The abovesaid incident is said to have happened in the context of the tenant-landlord disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The sole offence alleged against the petitioner is the one as per Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. Sec.125(3) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 would mandate that all offences other than Secs.116, 117, 118 & 119 of the Kerala Police Act enumerated in Sec.125(1) shall be non-cognizable and bailable. In other words, an offence in the nature of Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is a non-cognizable and bailable offence. Sec.155(2) of the Cr.P.C would mandate that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act would stipulate that if any person causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing message, e-mail or through a messenger; shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to Five Thousand rupees or with both. Indisputably, the offence as per Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is a non-cognizable offence going by the mandate of Sec.125(2) of the said Act. Hence, police can investigate such an offence only after securing orders of the Magistrate having the power to try such case or commit the case for trial, going by the mandate of Sec.155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the proceedings of the police, in which the learned Magistrate is said to have granted permission/sanction for conducting investigation by registering FIR. A reading of the said proceedings would show that the learned Magistrate has acted rather mechanically in granting such