BINOY JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.131 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapluram. The case originated from Crime No.1411 of 2016, registered at the Museum Police Station on the basis of a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner, who is her superior officer, had made sexually coloured remarks, inappropriate advances and had victimised her for not yielding to his demands. On completion of investigation, final report was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), (ii) and (iv) and Section 354D(1)(i) of IPC. At the stage of framing charge, the petitioner moved an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C contending that the allegations are false and even if accepted, do not make out the alleged offences. By Exhibit P3 order dated 4.5.2019, the discharge petition was dismissed finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner by framing charge for the alleged offences. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 order in revision, but with a delay of 355 days. By Exhibit P10 order, the revisional court dismissed the application for condonation of delay finding the explanation offered by the petitioner to be unacceptable and insufficient to condone the inordinate delay. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved, this original petition is filed.

(2.) Heard Sri.V.S.Babu Gireesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though cogent and convincing explanation was offered, it was not considered by the revisional court. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has initiated the criminal proceedings due to personal animosity towards the petitioner and that the accusations in the complaint are patently false. It is contended that the learned Magistrate having committed a patent illegality in dismissing the discharge petition on nebulous grounds, the revisional court was bound to consider the revision on merits.