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
| 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.
AI
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.
It is a settled principle of law that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly, because it is an extraordinary power given to court and cannot be exercised in a routine m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in altering or adding charges and committing the case to the Court of Session, as well as the limitations o....
Section 319 allows rejoining discharged accused based on evidence in ongoing trial; defining the distinction between inquiry and trial stages.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, which allows the court to proceed against a person not initially accused if eviden....
Trial commences upon framing charges; powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised before evidence is recorded.
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.