IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., S.MANU, J.
N.Prakash, Son Of Late A.Narayana Rao - Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar, Son Of Mathippu Raj - Respondent
WA NO. 1803 OF 2024
Decided on : 30-01-2025
ORDER
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased to direct the third respondent to submit a report before this Honourable Court as to the steps , if any, taken in pursuance to Exhibit P6, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.
This Writ appeal again coming on for orders on 30/01/2025 upon perusing the appeal memorandum and this court's order dated 16/12/2024, the court on the same day passed the following:
The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30 October 2024 in W.P.(C)No.36058 of 2024, dismissing the petition.
2. The Appellant/Petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the Station House Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, respectively, to take necessary action on the Ext.P6 complaint filed by the Petitioner. A writ was also sought to take action against Respondent No. 3 - Station House Officer for not registering the First Information Report (FIR) based on the Ext.P6 complaint. By way of Ext.P6 complaint, the Petitioner had alleged that on 28 July 2024, the Police Officer deployed by the Station House Officer, Puliyangudi Police Station, Tenkasi, who was in uniform, and two other persons in civil dress entered the house of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the persons who were not in uniform were, in fact, the Complainant and his friend, and, therefore, they had committed criminal trespass.
3. Essentially, what the Petitioner sought by this writ petition was that the complaint be investigated and the Respondents be prosecuted and punished accordingly. The writ petition was filed as a Writ Petition (Civil). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, declining to issue any directions for holding the enquiry and investigation into the complaint and holding that the FIR can go on as per law.
4. When the appeal came up before us, it was pointed out that, as per the Roster, appeals from orders passed in criminal writ petitions pertain to another Bench. That being the position, we looked into whether the present writ petition is a criminal or civil writ petition.
5. The Registrar (Judicial) has submitted a note as to the position regarding the civil and criminal writ petitions. The Registry has pointed out that the nomenclature W.P.(Crl.) was adopted in the High Court for petitions under Article 226 for writ of Habeas Corpus and other relief in relation to criminal proceedings vide notification dated 11 April 2013. The notification dated 11 April 2013 refers to the resolution of the Chief Justices' Conference, 1997 and the adoption of categorisation and nomenclature of cases. This includes the categorisation of writ petitions under Article 226 as civil writ petitions and as criminal writ petitions. Therefore, since 2013, the Registry has been categorising the writ petitions as Writ Petitions (Civil) and Writ Petitions (Criminal). Another notification was issued on 30 September 2021 stating that petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for reliefs in relation to criminal proceedings should be filed and numbered as Writ Petition (Criminal), the abbreviation should be used as W.P.(Crl.). The Registry has pointed out that as per the Roster, the Single Bench writ petitions go to two learned Single Judges and the writ appeals arising from order/judgment in Writ Petition (Criminal) are placed before two Division Benches and the Writ Petitions (Criminal) for Habeas Corpus are placed directly before the Division Bench. It is also pointed out that once a petition is filed as W.P. (C) or W.P.(Crl.) as per the codes given to these petitions at the initial stage as per the software, matters are placed before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench as the case may be. No decision of this court or any specific Rule making a distinction between the criminal and civil writ petitions is placed before us.
6.
S.A.L. Narayan Row and Another v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and Another
The classification of writ petitions under Article 226 depends on the nature of the relief sought; if it may lead to criminal prosecution, it should be treated as a criminal writ petition.
Section 177 of the CrPC unambiguously states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Point of law: power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. is concerned, the only criteria is the situs of the authority who has registered the cas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the availability of remedies under Section 156(3), and the limitations of invoking ....
The High Court retains discretion to dismiss a Writ Petition challenging an FIR as infructuous once a charge-sheet and cognizance of the offense has been filed, emphasizing jurisdictional principles ....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; FIR based on partnership agreements is an abuse of legal process.
The nature of the proceeding and the relief sought determine the jurisdiction, and the maintainability of the appeal depends on the understanding of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Point of Law - Where there is flagrant violation of the orders of the execution court and the alternate remedy found to be not efficacious, then police protection could be ordered.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.