SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Manaf S/o Muhammad - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kambalakkad Police Station - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 2490 of 2014
Decided On : 26-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sunny Mathew
For the Respondents: Mathew Kuriakose, Noushad K.A.

A Magistrate cannot invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day after dropping prosecution under Section 258, rendering such orders unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 258 and 319 - Jurisdiction to invoke powers under Section 482 against revisional court's order is limited - Legal question of whether a magistrate can invoke Section 319 after dropping prosecution under Section 258 on the same day was addressed - Petitioner argues the failure to do a thorough investigation warrants revisiting prior orders. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 14)

(B) Legal principle established - A Magistrate cannot exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping the case under Section 258 on the same day; such orders are deemed simultaneous and thus render the Section 319 invocation unsustainable. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
Two criminal misc. cases were heard regarding the addition of accused and further investigation in an ongoing case, which originally charged several individuals with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, and 323. The learned Magistrate dropped the case against the original accused and added new ones simultaneously, raising legal questions about the propriety of these actions.

Findings of Court:
It was determined that the Magistrate erred in invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping the prosecution under Section 258, leading to the conclusion that such orders are unsustainable.

Issues: The main issue addressed was the authority of the Magistrate to enact both orders on the same day and the implications for the legal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised when the proceedings have been dropped under Section 258 on the same date, reaffirming the need for the timing of such actions.

Result: Both criminal miscellaneous cases were disposed of, with specific directions to set aside certain prior orders.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. limited jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7)
3. interpretation of section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 9)
4. issues related to functus officio principle. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court's reasoning on the inconsistency of orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. final directions and conclusions of the case. (Para 15)

ORDER :

1. These two criminal miscellaneous cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. First, I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No.4291/2017. Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2017 in Crl.R.P. No.17/2016 whereby the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad confirmed the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady in Crl.M.P. No.1701/2016 in C.C. No.256/2009. It is a case charge sheeted by the Police against six persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Annexure-A is the FIR and Annexure-B is the FI Statement in the above case. As per the final report filed based on Annexures A and B FIR and FI Statement, K.I.Moidheen, Abdul Latheef, P.U. Sulaiman, K.A.Nazar, Rameesh E.A. and Rayinkutty were arraigned as accused. The petitioners were not accused originally. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and has taken on file the case as C.C.No.256/2009. Thereafter the trial in the case started and the defacto complainant was examined as PW1 on 20.01.2016. Annexure-C is the deposition of PW1. Pursuant to Annexure-C, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed Annexure-D petition to add the petitioners also as accused stating that the investigating agency omitted their name. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition as per the order dated 25.10.2016 as evident by Annexure-E. Moreover, the Court dropped the proceedings against the six persons who were charged by the Police originally invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Annexure-F is that order. Aggrieved by the Annexure-E order, the petitioners who were implicated as accused, filed a revision before the Session Judge, Kalpetta. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Annexure-G is the order. Aggrieved by Annexures E and G orders, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.

3. Crl.M.C. No.2490/2014 is filed by the defacto complainant in C.C. No.256/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. The above criminal miscellaneous case is filed with following prayers:

1) Pass an order entrusting the investigation into crime No. 320/2008 with the 2nd respondent and further to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a thorough and meaningful further investigation into the said crime in a time bound manner and to submit a final report based on such investigation.

2) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time. (SIC)

4. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant in the above case, the 1st respondent Police, in order to save the original accused, implicated respondents 4 to 9. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant, a further investigation is necessary in the case. Hence this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Crl.M.C.No. 4291/2017 is filed against Annexures-E and G orders. It is a settled position that, the jurisdiction of this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by a revisional court is very limited. Unless there is any illegality or irregularity that goes to the root of the case, this Court need not interfere with the orders passed by the revisional court invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. But a legal question is raised in this case. Annexure-E is an order passed by the learned Magistrate in an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top