Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ajayan in M R Ajayan vs The State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2024Matching Fragments
of the Court to undertake appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
12.Impugning the said order passed by the High Court, two petitions have been filed before this Court. SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024 is filed by M.R. Ajayan, stating that he is a socially spirited person and editor of “Green Kerela News". He is said to be aggrieved by the quashing of the grievous allegations in the complaint by the High Court. SLP (Crl.)No.7896 of 2023 is filed by Mr. Antony Raju, who is Accused No.2, stating that the High Court could not have directed de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings. Accused No.1 has not assailed any order. REASONING OF THE COURT BELOW
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
14.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the written submissions filed. The issues which arise for consideration of this Court are:
i. Whether M.R. Ajayan, appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024 has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order?3
(2017) 14 SCC 855 ii. Whether the High Court has rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.?
iii. Independent of the above, whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to be taken against the appellant?
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
15.Coming to the first issue at hand, concerning the locus standi of Mr. M.R. Ajayan, the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, he has submitted that he is a socially spirited person and editor of “Green Kerela News”. He had also filed an intervention application before the High Court of Kerala, resisting the quashing petition.
16. Antony Raju, Respondent No.2 in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024/ appellant in the appeal arising out SLP(Crl.)No.7896 of 2023, has objected to the locus of Mr. M.R. Ajayan, submitting that third parties cannot be permitted to prefer appeal in criminal proceedings and has sought to place reliance on judgments of this Court in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. (5-Judge Bench)4, (1980) 3 SCC 141 National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2-Judge Bench)5 and Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2-Judge Bench)6.