K V BENNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any legal impediment in taking cognizance by a Magistrate upon a private complaint preferred by a person, who is an accused in a crime case pending before another Magistrate Court wherein the Police after investigation filed a report referring the case as 'false' under S.173(2)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC'), especially when the factual allegation and the materials relied on by the complainant are intrinsically interconnected with that of the referred case which is still pending consideration before that Court This is the vital legal question that arose for consideration in the above three cases.

(2.) In the above two Criminal Revision Petitions, the challenge is against the order dated 09/10/2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in Crl. MP No. 6467 of 2009 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused therein. Crl. RP No. 3266 of 2009 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the above Crl. MP who are Police Officers holding various posts in the Police Department and Crl. RP No. 3282 of 2009 is preferred at the instance of the first accused therein who is a private party. In both the above Crl. Revision Petitions, the second respondent is the complainant in Crl. MP No. 6467 of 2009.

(3.) Crl. MC No. 134 of 2010 is a petition filed under S.482 of the CrPC by the de facto complainant in Crime No. 306 of 2007 of the Thoppumpady Police Station against the order dated 18/12/2009 in Crl. MP No. 6468 of 2009 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had withdrawn Crime No. 306 of 2007 of the Thoppumpady Police Station from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kochi to that Court. In the above Crl. MC, the first respondent is the accused in the above crime, who is also the complainant in Crl. MP No. 6467 of 2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and also the second respondent in the above two Crl. RPs. As the parties are same, the question of law involved is also same and the facts and circumstances involved in the three cases are interconnected, these cases are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.