Kerala High Court
T.S.Balram vs Srichand T.Rajpal on 28 October, 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2011
--------------------------------
M.C.NO.78 OF 2007 IN C.C.NO. 715/2004 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-1, THRISSUR.
-------------
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER IN CRL.R.P/COMPLAINANT IN C.C:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.S.BALRAM,
S/O.T.K.SITHARAMA IYYER,
PARTNER OF M/S.KALYAN ARCADE, 25/247 ROUND WEST,
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN CRL.R.P/ACCUSED AND STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SRICHAND T.RAJPAL,
MANAGER OF S.S.R ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT
GANAPATH NIKETHAN, FLAT NO.1, 18TH RD.KHAR,
WEST MUMBAI, PIN- 400 071.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-03-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2011
--------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A: DATED 28-10-1999, TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE B: DATED 15-11-1999, TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT
BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE C: DATED 02-01-2001, TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE BOMBAY METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT.
ANNEXURE D: DATED 07-06-2003, TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT-1, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE E: DATED 22-09-2007, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
C.C.NO.715 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC-1, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE F: DATED 30-09-2008, CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE ISSUED BY THE JMFC-1, THRISSUR TO THE
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE G: DATED 23-08-2007, TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DW-1
AND THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 15-11-1999 ALLEGEDLY SENT
BY DW-1.
ANNEXURE H: DATED 29-12-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
C.C.84/SW/2005 OF THE ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MUMBAI.
ANNEXURE I: DATED NIL-04-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
CRL.R.P.NO.30 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE J: DATED 07-01-2011, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.R.P.NO.30 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
----------------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 25th March, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur alleging the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, against the 1st respondent herein. The said complaint was forwarded for investigation to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the police submitted final report in the Court of the learned Magistrate under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. First respondent herein, as accused in the said case, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined five witnesses during trial and also marked Exts.P1 and P2. Nine documents were marked on the side of the defence also as Exts.D1 to D9. On trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused (1st respondent herein) not guilty, and accordingly he was acquitted under Section 248 (i), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused happened to be acquitted because the complainant in the said case did not support Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011 2 the prosecution during trial and the learned Magistrate even found that the evidence given by the complainant is in fact false. Finding that the complainant gave false evidence in court, the learned Magistrate ordered initiation of proceedings against the complainant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, after the acquittal of the accused, show cause notice under Section 344 (1) of Cr.P.C. was given to the complainant (petitioner herein) by the learned Magistrate. On getting the said show cause notice, he approached this Court with this petition, with a prayer to quash the said show cause notice and also to expunge the remarks made against him by the learned Magistrate in the judgment in C.C.715 of 2004.
2. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the accused in C.C. 715 of 2004 happened to be acquitted when the complainant himself did not support the prosecution. However, the finding of the trial court is that the complainant has, in fact, given false evidence in court. In connection with such a finding, the learned Magistrate also made some remarks about the complainant in the Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011 3 judgment. If those remarks are now expunged, it will, no doubt, affect the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has not in fact gone beyond giving a show cause notice for summary trial under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a show cause notice cannot in fact, be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this court. On getting show cause notice, the petitioner will have to submit his explanation, and then the learned Magistrate will decide whether the summary trial initiated by the learned Magistrate will have to proceed. If ultimately, the learned Magistrate finds the petitioner guilty on summary trial under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner will have the right of appeal under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before proceeding to show cause to the notice the petitioner is rushed to this Court for relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a course can be adopted and such a relief can be sought by the petitioner, only if he fails in the normal Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011 4 remedies available.
3. On a perusal of the case records, I do not find any reason to hold that the proceeding ordered to be initiated by the learned Magistrate under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in any manner abuse of judicial process. The learned Magistrate has stated sufficient reasons by way of findings in the judgment in C.C. 715/2004 for initiation of such a prosecution or summary trial under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has remedy under the law,in case he is convicted in the said proceedings. Under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court can either proceed for summary trial under Sub-section (1) or the Court can adopt the procedure under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to file a complaint before the appropriate court. In the present case, the learned Magistrate did not think of filing a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, and thought of only summary procedure under Section 344 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate initiated such an action on the basis Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011 5 of materials, which came to the notice of the Court during trial. Such an action initiated by the learned Magistrate will have to proceed because it cannot be said to be abuse of judicial process. The petitioner can very well make contest in the said proceedings, and can pursue the remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only after pursuing the other normal remedies available. This is not a case where this Court can invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the appropriate stage, he can also make application to get remarks against him expunged. If those remarks are now expunged at this stage, it will affect the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate. In the above circumstances, I find that this petition brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have any merit, and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. Is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.S to Judge
Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011
6
Crl.M.C No.851 of 2011
7