A Magistrate must independently evaluate evidence and not solely rely on police conclusions when dismissing a complaint; proper procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed.

ORDER :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short) by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 21.12.2013, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, in C.M.P.No.839 of 2011, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

2. Crime No.868 of 2010 was registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station on 08.09.2010, at 17.00 hours under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC based on the First Information Statement of the petitioner recorded on 08.09.2010 at 04.00 p.m., from a hospital wherein he was under treatment due to the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. On completion of the investigation, on 10.11.2010, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha, filed a final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, referring the case as false.

3. On receipt of notice about the filing of the final report, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed C.M.P.No.839 of 2011 under Section 190 Cr.P.C. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and a witness, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, which is extracted below:

“This is a protest complaint filed, aggrieved by the refer report filed by the police in crime No. 868/2010 of Muvatupuzha police Station as "false". On going through the sworn statements of the complainant and his witness and also the refer report, it can be seen that there is nothing improper in the investigation done by the police which revealed that the motor accident occurred due to the negligence of the complainant himself as he was riding the scooter on the wrong side of the road near the patrol pump and there was no negligent act on the part of the accused. It appears that the sole intention of the complainant is to get a motor accident claim by foisting a false case against the accused. There is no sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed u/s 203 Cr.PC.”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the sworn statement of the petitioner, it is stated that the accident was caused due to the driving of the vehicle by the accused at high speed. CW2, a witness examined from the side of the petitioner, who was an employee of a petrol pump situated near the place of occurrence, categorically stated in his sworn statement that, it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident occurred. However, without properly considering these statements, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

6. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in the refer report filed by the investigating officer, it is clearly stated that the petitioner gave a false First Information Statement before the Police, to make the Police to register a crime against the accused with a view to raise insurance claim for the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident, which was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

7. I have carefully verified the impugned order of the learned Magistrate as well as the trial court records. As noted above, the crime in this case was registered on 08.09.2010 at 17.00 hours based on the First Information Statement of the petitioner recorded on the very same day at 04.00 p