Kerala High Court
M.K.Mani vs Madhavi on 11 November, 2024
2024:KER:82230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2010 IN CRL.A NO.131 OF 2009
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KALPETTA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2009 IN CC NO.278 OF 2004 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, SULTHANBATHERY
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
M.K.MANI, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. M.KUNJU, MANALICHIRA HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA P.O.,
MUTTIL VILLAGE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
SMT.G.VIDYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 K. MADHAVI,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. KUMARAN, SNEHANJALI, MUNDERI, KALPETTA P.O.,
WAYANAD-673 121.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.HARISH
SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANAL P. RAJ
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
02.11.2024, THE COURT ON 11.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82230
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013
2
ORDER
The criminal revision is preferred against the order of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, in Crl.A.No.131/2009. The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.No.278/2004 of JFCM Court No.II, Sultan Bathery.
2. The revision petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint before the JFCM Court No.II, Sultan Bathery, under Sections 211, 500 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that he was an Ex-Serviceman and had worked as Sergeant in the Civil Station, Wayanadu. He has received several good-service entries. The 1st accused, K. Madhavi, was working as a Sanitary Worker and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were working as the Sweepers in the Collectorate.
4. The accused were not amenable to the disciplinary rules, and they used to violate the directions of the complainant. The complainant is a respectable person in society. The accused conspired with common intention to defame the complainant, and the 1st accused lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mananthawady, raising a false allegation 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 3 that while she was cleaning the bathroom, the complainant pushed open the door and attempted to outrage her modesty and called her cast-name. The police referred the case as the allegations against the complainant were false.
5. The 1st accused lodged yet another complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpetta, raising false allegations and managed to register Crime No.235/2001 against the complainant under Section 354 IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But the police has referred the case since the allegations were false.
6. The 1st accused has therefore filed Crl.M.P.187/2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, reiterating the false allegations against the complainant. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has declined to take congnizance, and the CMP was also dismissed as 'not pressed'.
7. Thereafter, the complainant/revision petitioner has filed C.C.No.278/2004, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 211, 500 r/w 34 of IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the 1st accused guilty under Section 500 IPC, but released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 4 complainant under Section 5(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act.
8. The 1st accused filed Crl.Appeal No.131/2009 before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but reduced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-.
9. Impugning the said judgment in Crl.A.131/2009, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.
10. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
11. The revision petitioner/complainant submits that the appellate court seriously erred in reducing the compensation, and the impugned order is to be interfered with on that ground. It was submitted that the accused were taking revenge upon the complainant for asking them to discharge their duties properly, and the defamatory acts of the accused have substantially harmed the reputation of the complainant/revision petitioner. It has hurt and lowered the complainant's moral character and spoiled his reputation and goodwill.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the very object of introducing Section 500 of the IPC is to protect the reputation and goodwill of a person. The Appellate 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 5 Court ought not have taken a lighter view by reducing the compensation awarded by the trial court.
13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that he has not received notice from the appellate court in Crl.A.No.131/2009 filed by the 1 st respondent/accused, but he has filed Crl.R.P.No.18/2009 before the Sessions Court, challenging the order of acquittal and praying for enhancement of sentence awarded to the 1st accused. The Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc- II, Kalpetta dismissed Crl.R.P.No.18/2009 on 31.01.2013, confirming the conviction and the sentence. Thereafter, the revision petitioner came to know that the appellate court has already allowed Crl.A.No.131/2009 filed by the 1 st accused reducing the sentence.
14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant has placed a reliance on a decision reported in Subramanian Swamy and Others v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others (2016 KHC 6401) . In Subramanian Swamy's case (supra), the Honourble Apex Court had occasion to deal with Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC in detail. In Subramanian Swamy's case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court observed that the right of free speech cannot mean that a citizen 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 6 can defame the other. Further, the protection of reputation is a fundamental right.
15. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/accused submitted that no interference is warranted in this matter. The appellate court has exercised the discretion vested on it by reducing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellate court has specifically stated the reason for the reduction of the compensation. The Honourable Apex Court in Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari (2022 KHC 5770), observed thus:
23. S.397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.
24. It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of S.397 CrPC has been succinctly considered and explained. Para 12 and 13 resply are as follows:
"12. S.397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well - founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 7 indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
"13. Another well - accepted norm is that the revisionai jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
The decision of this Court in Manimekhala S. v. State of Kerala (2024 (2) KHC 37) observed thus:
"21. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse, or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non - consideration of any relevant material or, there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an Appellate Court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under S.397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, 2015 (3) SCC 123, Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2001 (9) SCC 631 and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299}."
16. I have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Court. The appellate court has reduced the compensation imposed under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, stating that, considering the poor financial position of the appellant, the 2024:KER:82230 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2188 OF 2013 8 compensation amount was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-. Upon hearing the submission of both sides, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE msp