Kerala High Court
Premachandran vs Ravindhar @ Thampi Elias
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 89 of 2013 ()
------------------------
(CRIME NO. 6/2012 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
------------------------------
1. PREMACHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.LATE V.P.KRISHNAPOTHUVAL
WORKING AS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER
GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,PAYYANNUR
RESIDING AT MALAYAM,THAYINERI,PAYYANNUR
VELLUR VILLAGE,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. K.C.MURALLIDHARAN AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.C.VASUDEVAN NAIR
WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH
PAYYANNUR COLLEGE,PAYYANNUR,RESIDING AT GANGA
EDAT,KUNJIMANGALAM VILLAGE,KANNUR TALUK
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, STATE AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. RAVINDHAR @ THAMPI ELIAS, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.LATE C.N.ELIAS, PATTASSERIL HOUSE, THRIPUNITHURA
NADAMA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (DY.S.P.)
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN ALEX
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
MNS
Crl.MC.No. 89 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-A: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FI STATEMENT IN CRIME 6/2012 OF
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-B: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (CMP 3071/2012) FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR COMPOSITION BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-C: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2012 IN CMP 3071/2012
IN CYBER POLICE STATION CRIME 6/2012 OF CJM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. M.C.No. 89 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.6/2012 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein the offences alleged are under Sections 43(a)(b) read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is stated that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled amicably. The offences alleged are compoundable, in view of Section 77A of the Act.
2. Annexure B is the application filed by the first respondent/defacto complainant for composition of the offence before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the prayer is to grant permission to the petitioner therein to compound the above offence and discharge the accused. On the said petition, the court below passed Annexure C order. It is submitted that the investigating officer, even though was approached, has not even taken the statement of the first respondent and has not taken any further action in this regard.
3. The prayer is for considering the matter in the light of the principles stated by this Court in Yesudas v. S.I. Of Police (2008 (1) KLT Crl.M.C.No.89/2013 -2-
245). Para 17 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"17. The mere fact that the victim and/or the accused have the option of going before the police to report composition, it does not take away their right to approach the Magistrate seeking composition of offences falling under S.320(1) or 320(2) Cr.P.C. In such event, the Magistrate will certainly have to order notice to the Investigating Officer and after hearing him also appropriate decision will have to be taken by the learned Magistrate on the question of accepting the composition as also on the question of grant of leave under S. 320 (2) Cr.P.C. Appropriate orders under S.320 Cr.P.C. will then have to be passed by the learned Magistrate."
Since the investigating officer is not taking further action in the matter, this Court will have to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the principles stated in the above judgment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, even in the light of the negative report by the investigating officer, there is nothing in law which prevents the court from considering the compounding application in view of Section 77A read with Section 320 Cr.P.C.
4. The parties will, therefore, approach the court below with a proper Crl.M.C.No.89/2013 -3- application which will be duly considered. Appropriate steps will be initiated afresh and the same will be completed, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the petition.
The Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) kav/