K.PRAHLADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court -1 (Economic Offence), Ernakulam to receive the complaint and pass appropriate orders on the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the complainant and his wife Leena is the registered owner of Maheendra Zylo vehicle hypothecated to Sree Ram Finance Company. It is a taxi vehicle. The petitioner was managing the same. They obtained Rs.2,00,000/ - loan from the 2nd respondent. Substantial amount was repaid. He was charging 38% interest. There was some default and the vehicle was forcibly taken and it is now in his custody. It cannot be hired also. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Kochi city, but no action was taken for the last four months. So the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's Court. Though the complainant was orally examined in the witness box, it was not recorded and the learned Magistrate has returned the complaint to the counsel without making any endorsement in the complaint. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he filed a complaint, it was returned by the learned Magistrate and according to him, even though the complainant was orally examined his statement was not recorded. The action of the Magistrate is unsustainable in law.