BINEESH BABU Vs. MANJULA SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISMISSAL of a complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 447, 379 and 188 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in this revision. The alleged incident of trespass and mischief occurred at about 3 p.m on 3.3.2012. Accused Nos.5 and 6 arraigned in the complaint are Revenue Officials and the 7th accused arraigned in the complaint is the Sub Inspector of the local Police Station. A civil case involving property dispute is pending between the complainant and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 arraigned in the complaint. They are husband and wife. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are their children. The complaint alleges that all the seven accused trespassed into the complainant's property, committed some acts of mischief, cut and removed some valuable trees causing heavy loss to the complainant, and the accused did so in violation of an injunction order passed by the Civil Court in the pending civil case.

(2.) THE complaint of the complainant was received as CMP No.6460 of 2012 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Varkala and the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Statement on oath of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and later, statement of an independent witness was also recorded. The learned Magistrate found that there is no sufficient material to make out the offences alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C by order dated 9.1.2014.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , there is a civil case pending between the complainant and the accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.2 and 3 arraigned in the complaint are not strangers. On a perusal of the case records. I find that the accused Nos.5 and 6 came in the property on an application made by one of the parties to the civil case under the Surveys and Boundaries Act, to have the properties measured. I also find that the 7th accused came in the property as Sub Inspector of the local Police Station, in view of an order passed by this Court granting police protection. In stead of bringing them as witnesses, the complainant thought of prosecuting them also. Such a complaint against such officers, who came in the property in discharge of their official functions, can not at all be entertained. Legal process cannot be misused to proceed against responsible officers who discharged their duties as public servants. There is nothing to show that the Revenue Officers or the Sub Inspector had any special reason or interest to come to the property, or that they were in any manner involved in the alleged acts of mischief. Had they been made witnesses, the court could have accepted the case of the complainant. Thus, the officials had no role or interest in the civil dispute between the complainant and the accused Nos.1 to 4. Mala fide of the complaint is well revealed by the very fact that these officers, who at the most, could be witnesses, are arraigned as accused in the complaint. Anyway, it has come out during enquiry that they came in the property not to help the others, or as members of any unlawful assembly, or with the common intention, or with the common object of others, but they came in the property only as responsible public servants.