Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
KURUNTHATTIL KUTTIYAT RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
KAPPADAN VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7461 OF 2023 | CRIME NO.77/2021 | CC NO.1316 OF 2022
The key points from the legal document are as follows:
The case involves a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is accused of wrongful restraint and physical assault (!) .
The initial complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation, which resulted in a refer report stating that the allegations were false. Despite this, the magistrate issued summons to the petitioner without explicitly considering the refer report (!) (!) .
The magistrate's order did not demonstrate that he had reviewed or considered the police refer report before proceeding, which is a procedural deficiency. The order lacked reasoning on why the complaint was being pursued despite evidence indicating falsehood (!) (!) .
When a complaint is filed as a protest against a police refer report, the magistrate must provide reasons for accepting or rejecting the refer report, ensuring transparency and adherence to due process. The order should reflect that the magistrate considered all relevant evidence and applied his mind to the case (!) (!) .
The court found that the magistrate's order was silent on whether he had perused the refer report, and thus, the proceedings lacked proper procedural justification. This omission warrants setting aside the order and remanding the case for a proper, reasoned re-evaluation (!) (!) .
The remand directs the magistrate to reconsider the case afresh, explicitly considering the police refer report, relevant records, and to provide a brief reasoning for accepting or rejecting the police findings. This ensures compliance with procedural requirements and fair adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the case emphasizes the importance of magistrates providing clear, reasoned decisions after thoroughly examining all relevant evidence, including police reports, especially when there is a dispute about the veracity of complaints (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial complaint and police referral indicate conflict. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's claim of innocence and motivations behind complaint. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counsels' arguments present views on the petition. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's findings emphasize procedural compliance and reason. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final decision mandates remanding the case for proper consideration. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
The accused in C.C No.1316/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thaliparamba has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case. The learned Magistrate had initiated the proceedings against him in a protest complaint, alleging the commission of offences under Sections
341, 323, 354 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
2. Initially, the complaint filed by the first respondent/complainant was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Sreekandapuram Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, for investigation and report. The allegation against the petitioner, a Grade Sub Inspector of the Kerala Police, was that he wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant/first respondent at about 11:00 a.m on 14.02.2021, while she was entering into a road leading to her residence, and mounted physical assault by pushing her down to the ground getting hold of her chest and kicking upon her stomach. It was further alleged that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant by tearing off her blouse and criminally intimidated her by saying that she would be done away with, if she ventured to use the above road anymore.
3. After investigation, the S.I of Police, Sreekandapuram filed a refer charge in the above complaint stating that the allegations were false. It is against the above refer charge that the first respondent preferred the protest complaint before the learned Magistrate. In the above protest complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 27.08.2022, taking the complaint into files and issuing summons to the petitioner, to answer the charges under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Now, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. According to the petitioner, the first respondent nurtured enmity with him in connection with a civil case instituted by him against the son of the first respondent for trespassing into his property, and attempting to cut open a road. It is further contended that, in connection with the above issue, the Sreekandapuram Police had registered a case against the son of the first respondent for the commission of offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. The de facto complainant/first respondent in this case is alleged to have instituted a false complaint as a counterblast to the aforesaid case. The petitioner would further contend that the learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings against him in violation of the relevant provisions of law.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 27.08.2022 in C.M.P No.1488/2022 reads as follows: “Complainant present. Statement on oath recorded.
Considering the statement on oath of the complainant and documents produced along with the complaint, I am satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against accused U/S 341, 323, 354, 506(ii) IPC. Hence, complaint is taken on file as CC 1316/2022. Issue summons 12.12.2022.”
7. The aforesaid order does not reflect the aspect whether the learned Magistrate had gone through the refer report filed by the Police with the finding that the complaint against the petitioner herein was false. Obviously, due to the omission to peruse the refer report, the learned Magistrate had no
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
