Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.GIRISH, J
HARISH KUMAR A. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO.3513 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.), SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.SABU GEORGE, SMT.B.ANUSREE, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SMT.MEERA P.
For the Respondents: SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL), SRI.SUDHEER G. - PP
The court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint due to lack of sufficient grounds, emphasizing the integrity of lower court decisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:This case examines the dismissal of a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Magistrate found insufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, leading to a revision petition dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, affirming no blatant illegality in their proceedings. Thus, the petition was dismissed. The court noted, 'there is no reason for interference.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of dismissal of the complaint. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented about the lower court findings. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the absence of interference. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The order dated 30.03.2019 of the Additional Sessions Court -
II, Palakkad, dismissing Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2 of 2016 filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 31.12.2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Palakkad, is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner had filed a private complaint alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against respondents 2 and 3 herein. The learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C, on the findings that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It was observed after analysing the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses that the ingredients of the offences have not been brought out. In the revision petition filed before the Sessions Court - II, Palakkad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, looked into the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and found that there is no reason for interference.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. On going through the reasoning adopted by the courts below in the impugned orders, I am of the view that there is absolutely no scope for interference in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, since there is no blatant illegality or irregularity warranting correction by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The courts below have rightly observed, after analysing the facts of the case, that the offences alleged against the accused are not brought out from the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses. In the above circumstances, this petition filed by the petitioner can only fail.
In the result, the petition stands dismissed.
