The Magistrate must consider all relevant findings and explicitly state reasons for proceedings against an accused when evaluating a protest complaint.

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court as per the order dated 15.10.2024, remanding the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to reconsider Annexure-A protest complaint in the light of Annexure-C FSL report and the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer. However, the first respondent/de facto complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.2/2024 to re-hear the matter, stating the reason that the order was passed without hearing him. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge recalled the order dated 15.10.2024 by observing that though the de facto complainant was already heard before passing the aforesaid order, the request for re-hearing the matter is allowed since he has got a grievance that he was not properly heard.

2. The brief history of the case is as follows:

The first respondent/de facto complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, with a complaint alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), by four accused, among whom the petitioners herein were arraigned as accused Nos.1, 2 & 4. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’). The Police, after investigation, filed a refer report, stating that the complaint was false. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed Annexure-A protest complaint. The learned Magistrate dismissed the above protest complaint under Section 203 Cr.PC. Though the de facto complainant challenged the above dismissal by filing Crl.R.P.No.6/2009 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, the learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere, and accordingly, dismissed the above revision. Thereafter, the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.C.No.674/2011 before this Court against the above verdicts of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. This Court remanded the case back vide Annexure-B order to the Trial Court for further enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took the complaint back and proceeded with the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC with the involvement of the Police as well. As part of the above enquiry, the learned Magistrate obtained Annexure-C report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the veracity of the allegation of forgery raised by the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence upon the protest complaint vide Annexure-D order. It is against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate initiating the proceedings against the petitioners that the present Crl.M.C. has been preferred by the petitioners.

3. The grievance of the de facto complainant in the above complaint was that the Manager, Principal, former Accountant and former Principal of Devamatha CMI Public School, where he had been working as a Trained Graduate Teacher, resorted to forgery and criminal breach of trust by obtaining signed blank cheques from him and made use of the above signed blank cheques for withdrawing the entire salary credited to his account, and thereafter, disbursed only a portion of the amount to him.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Viyyur, who conducted investigation on the matter in accordance with the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC., found that the allegations were false, and accordingly filed the refer report. It is against the above refer report that the de facto complainant preferred a protest complaint which was dismissed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. After the remand of the case back to the T