RENJITHA MARKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peermade which was confirmed in revision by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.R.P.No. 3 of 2013, the complainant has come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have the orders impugned quashed and for a direction that steps in accordance with law will be taken on her complaint.

(2.) At the outset itself, it may be observed that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that after having the first complaint aborted on the discharge of the fifth respondent herein which was confirmed by the Apex Court, a second complaint on the similar set of facts, with no new materials disclosed, need not be entertained. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the Station House Officer concerned, before whom a complaint was filed, could not have refused to register a case since a cognizable offence was made out and the alternative contention is that when a private complaint was laid before the JFCM Court, Peermade since a cognizable offence is alleged and is prima facie made out, the learned Magistrate had only two options, namely, (i) either to refer the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or (ii) to proceed under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. The contention is that after taking the sworn statement and the evidence that is sought to be adduced by the complainant, if the learned Magistrate finds that there are no materials to proceed against the accused persons, he may be well within his powers to dismiss the complaint. But without referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and without following the procedures under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could not have rejected the complaint at the threshold. At any rate, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in confirming the rejection of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein.

(3.) This proceedings is an offshoot of what now popularly known as 'Suryanelli sex scandal case'. In this proceedings also, like in the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner herein, action is directed against the fifth respondent.