LAWS(KER)-2020-7-372

T.P. NANDAKUMAR Vs. NANDAKUMAR NAIR

Decided On July 14, 2020
T.P. NANDAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
Nandakumar Nair Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C. No. 1980/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the order of the court issuing process to him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 116, 109 of 182 and 195A of the Indian penal code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC), invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC').

(2.) He is the chief editor of the crime Magazine published from Kozhikode District. Annexure-A complaint, on the basis of which the impugned order was issued, was instituted against him by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, who is the first respondent herein. The learned Magistrate, after making it clear in the impugned order that it was a complaint filed by a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties, dispensed with his examination under Section 200 of the CrPC.

(3.) The challenge in this proceeding is that the order dispensing with the examination of the first respondent invoking proviso(a) to Section 200 of the CrPC, is illegal and has been passed without application of mind. It is contended that the first respondent was not acting in discharge of his official duties while filing Annexure-A complaint and since there was no tangible reason for the learned Magistrate to exempt the first respondent from examination, he acted in violation of mandatory requirement of law. It is also contended that the complaint filed ought to be reckoned as having been filed in his private and personal capacity, especially when he has not pleaded in the complaint that institution of the proceeding was in discharge of his official duties. It is alternatively contended that in any view of the matter, issue of process without the learned Magistrate conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC was quite illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was residing outside the jurisdictional limit of the court.