Madhu vs G.Ravikumar on 12 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 176 of 2010()


1. MADHU, S/O.YOHANNAN, "ASHOK BHAVAN"
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. G.RAVIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAPANICKAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :12/03/2010

 O R D E R
                  * * * *V.*RAMKUMAR,*J.* * * *
                          * * * * * * * *
                     Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010
                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                Dated: 12th day of March, 2010

                               ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The revision petitioner challenges Annexure – B
order dated 10-12-2009 passed by the Judl. Magistrate of
the First Class-I, Neyyattinkara taking cognizance of offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 and 323 read
with Sec. 149 I.P.C. against him and registering the case as
C.C. 837 of 2009. The cognizance has been taken on a private
complaint preferred by the first respondent herein against the
petitioner alleging the aforesaid offences. It is admitted that
there had been previous police investigation with regard to the
occurrence that allegedly took place on 26-01-2004 at about
10.30 p.m. and as per Annexure E final report and Annexure
D supplementary report the petitioner’s name was not
included by the police. It was thereafter that the first
respondent preferred a protest complaint in which the court
below has taken cognizance as per Annexure B order dated
10-12-2009. The said order reads as follows:

“10-12-2009
Complainant present. Case is taken on file as

Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010 -:2:-

C.C. 837/2009 (a1) under Section 143, 147,
149, 447. 427 and 323 I.P.C. Issue summons to
accused to 26-2-2010″.

3. It cannot be disputed that the issuance of process
against a person after taking cognizance of offences is a
drastic step concerning a person. (Vide Pepsi Foods Ltd. &
Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others – (1998 ) 5 SCC

749. It is more so in the case of a private complaint which
was preceded by two refer reports as against the revision
petitioner who was not charge-sheeted by the police on both
the earlier occasions. The minimum that was expected of
the Magistrate was to advert to the records produced by the
police before proceeding to take cognizance on the protest
complaint as was held in 2009 (1) KLT 794. That has not
been done. Annexure B order is, therefore, set aside leaving
it to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law on the private complaint registered as C.M.P. No.
507 of 2009.

This Revision is allowed as above.

V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)

ani.

Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010 -:3:-