Point of Law: When complaints of an inscrutable nature are pursued, and when the Magistrate is satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint, the Magistrate has the power to dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr.,P.C.

ORDER :

“A significant factor in this backlog (of cases) is the vast mass of frivolous litigation instituted year after year by litigants with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a crucial step towards a more effective justice system a step that cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings.”

The above words of wisdom echoed by the Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2021) 5 SCC 435] find meaning in the present case.

Revision petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging various offences committed by 48 persons. The accused named in the complaint are high-ranking officials of the State like the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary, the State Police Chief, the Additional Director General of Police, Commissioners of Police, Superintendents of Police and others. After considering the materials on record and the statement of the defacto complainant, the learned Magistrate found no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, this criminal revision petition is preferred.

2. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, alleging offences committed by the accused based on three different incidents that happened within the limits of three different police stations.

3. Revision petitioner as complainant alleged that all the 48 accused had committed offences like forgery, conspiracy, cheating, violence, breach of trust and even disobeyed the directions of law. It was pleaded that police had fabricated a document containing revision petitioner’s forged signature, while the officer who investigated the case succumbed to the temptations of the first accused (the Chief Secretary of Kerala) and took bribe and impersonated the revision petitioner and forged his signature, while the officer who investigated the case at Kazhakoottam succumbed to the temptations of the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram (Accused No.43) and took bribe and forged the signature. Various incidents of cheating were also alleged, apart from violation of directions of law as per which the accused allegedly committed the offence under section 166 Cr.P.C.

4. The revision petitioner further alleged that he had taken expert opinion from a trustworthy laboratory and based on the above allegations the revision petitioner prayed that, in order to save the judiciary and the Constitution of India, life imprisonment must be imposed upon the accused for the offences under sections 467, 471, 409, 419, 420, 219, 324, 166, 182, 199, 200, 203 and 294(b) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Various other reliefs were also sought for in the complaint drafted in a manner akin to a writ petition.

5. By the impugned order dated 20.10.2022, learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint after finding that the statement of the revision petitioner and the materials produced did not show any material grounds to proceed against the accused.

6. Sri.Asif Azad, the revision petitioner who appeared as party-in-person, contended that the complaint filed by him before three police stations were referred by the police after producing a notice containing his forged signatures. It was alleged that the expert opinion obtained by him was convincing enough to show that the signatures were forged and therefore the accused had conspired to commit the forgery. It was further submitted that the revision petitioner had sufficient materials to prove the guilt of all the accused and therefore the Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint. He further pointed out that on 05.01.2022, this Court had in W.P.(C) No.17767 of 2021 directed the final report to be filed in a time bound manner, at any rate, within tw