Point of Law: It is settled that powers under S.156(3) of Cr.PC cannot be exercised casually or mechanically but are required to be exercised judiciously. True, at that stage, Magistrate/Court is not required to embark upon an in-depth roving enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations in complaint.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash Annexure V order dated 27/3/2021 passed by the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode (in-charge of District and Sessions Court, Kavaratti) (for short, the court below).

2. The petitioner is working as Additional Public Prosecutor and Additional Government Pleader at the District and Sessions Court, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep. The 2nd respondent is a practising lawyer at Kavaratti, Lakshadweep.

3. The 2nd respondent is representing the accused in SC No. 13/2019 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of POCSO cases, Kavaratti. The allegation in the said case is that the victim girl therein aged 16 years was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the accused therein.

4. Several other crimes were also registered on the allegation that the very same girl was subjected to sexual assault by different persons.

5. As per the direction of the Special Court for the trial of POCSO cases, Kavaratti, the victim was accommodated in a Working Women’s Hostel. The victim was found missing one day from the said hostel. The police intervened and took her back to the hostel. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent published a Facebook post alleging that the petitioner is constantly contacting the victim and had a role in the missing incident of the victim girl. As the contents of the said Facebook post revealed the identity of the victim girl, a case was registered against the 2nd respondent as Crime No.35/2020 by Androth police station u/s 23(4) r/w 23(1) & 23(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and u/s 228A of the Indian Penal 2nd Code, 1860. Annexure II is the FIR. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint to the Station House Officer as well as the Superintendent of Police, Lakshadweep on 1/12/2020 without mentioning any names of the persons who are frequently contacting the victim through phone and regarding the missing incident of the victim girl. Thereafter on 25/1/2021, the 2nd respondent filed another complaint to the Station House Officer, Kavaratti Police Station alleging that the petitioner is constantly contacting the victim and hence committed the offence punishable u/s 11(iv) of the POCSO Act and u/s 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘JJ Act’). However, the Station House Officer did not register the case. Annexure IV is the said complaint. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint at the Court of Sessions, Kavaratti raising the very same allegations. Since there was no sitting at the Court of Sessions, Kavaratti, the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode which was in charge of the Court of Sessions, Kavaratti forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Kavaratti for investigation u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P.C as per the order dated 27/03/2021. Annexure V is the copy of the private complaint. The order forms part of Annexure V. The said order is under challenge in this Crl. M.C.

6. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Sri.Vijin Karthik, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Rajeev submitted that Annexure V complaint filed by the 2nd respondent who is none other than the counsel appearing for the accused in SC No.13/2019 against the Public Prosecutor representing the victim therein is attended with malafides and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak personal vengeance on the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the court below mechanically forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C without applying its mind. The counsel also submitted that even if the entire allegations in Annexure V complaint are believed, no offence u/s 11(iv) of the POCSO Act or S.75 of the JJ Act are attracted and as such, the court below ought not to have forwarded the complaint to th