Kerala High Court
Ummer Koya vs The State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 7419 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
CP.NO. 79/2015 IN CC NO. 2877/2012
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, TIRUR
CRIME NO. 236/2012 OF KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
--------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
------------------------------------
UMMER KOYA
SON OF KUTTYAMU, AGED 46 YEARS
KALLITHADATHIL HOUSE, OZHOOR POST
TANALUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN-676 307.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
RESPONDENT/STATE :
------------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTING CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VALANCHERRY POLICE STATION, VALANCHERRY-676 552
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.T. SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 7419 of 2015 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A1. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPROT IN CRIME NO.236/2012 OF
KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 6/5/2012.
ANNEXURE-A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN CC NO.2877/2012.
ANNEXURE-A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN CC NO.2877/2012.
ANNEXURE-A4. CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN CC NO.2877/2012.
ANNEXURE-A5. CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN CC NO.2877/2012.
ANNEXURE-A6. CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ORDER DATED 30/10/2015 IN
CP NO.79/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, TIRUR, ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL
-----------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
P. UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7419 of 2015
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.2877/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, wherein the offence under Section 498-A IPC is alleged by the prosecution. The case relates to the commission of suicide by the petitioner's wife, Raheena. On the complaint of the relatives, the police conducted investigation, and submitted final report under Section 498-A IPC. It appears that pending trial, the whole dispute was settled, and during trial, the material witnesses turned hostile. After framing charge under Section 498-A IPC, the learned Magistrate examined four witnesses who are the very material witnesses cited by the prosecution. After examination of the 4th witness, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned Annexure-A6 order, converting the proceedings to committal proceeding, on the finding that the allegations make out the offence under Section 306 IPC. The said order is under challenge, and it is sought to be set aside. The full diary extract Crl.M.C.. No.7419/2015 2 up to the Annexure-A6 order and also the copy of the deposition given by the witnesses are made available from the trial court. On a perusal of the depositions, I find that nobody has in any manner supported the prosecution. The persons examined by the prosecution are the near relatives of the deceased. Everybody stated that he does not know why Raheena committed suicide, and nobody has got a case that Raheena had in any manner been physically or mentally harassed by the accused. It is submitted that all the witnesses deposed so, in view of a settlement made out of court.
2. Section 323Cr.P.C. Provides the procedure for committal of a case involving a summons trial procedure or warrant trial procedure. The section provides that if in any enquiry in to an offence, or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing the judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit the case to that court under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the law is very clear that in a pending case involving summons trial or warrant trial before a Magistrate, the Crl.M.C.. No.7419/2015 3 court can initiate committal proceeding and commit the case to the Court of Session, only if it appears to the Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. Thus, there must be something which tells the court, and which convinces the learned Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. Here, nobody is there to support the prosecution, in any manner. Nobody knows the reason for commission of suicide. Nobody knows why Raheena committed suicide. Nobody blames the accused, that Raheena had been, in any manner, mentally or physically harassed by her husband. The final report also does not contain anything to indicate that commission of suicide by Raheena was in any manner affected by the accused. What is alleged in the final report is that Raheena had been subjected to some harassment by the husband, but the final report does not allege that such harassment led to the commission of suicide, or that the acts of the accused by a continuous course of cruel conduct made the lady commit suicide. It is not known from where the learned Magistrate got materials for a satisfaction that the case ought to Crl.M.C.. No.7419/2015 4 be tried by the Court of Session. I find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned Annexure-A6 order passed by the court below will stand set aside, and the case will stand restored to file before the court below as a calender case. The learned Magistrate shall proceed from the stage at which the Annexure-A6 order was passed.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge