FR THOMAS MANIANKERIKALAM Vs. THOMAS J PADIYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash prosecution of the appellants under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code. The point involved in this case is as to whether the complainant was justified in authorising Power of Attorney Holder to file the complaint under proviso to S.199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lays down that where a complainant is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. In the present case, the complainant himself did not file the complaint because he was residing in Dubai, which was not a ground under the said proviso. As such the complainant was not justified in authorising the Power of Attorney Holder to file the complaint on his behalf. This being the position, we are of the view that the complaint, having not been presented in accordance with the provisions of S.199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as such prosecution of the appellants is fit to be quashed.