GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are husband and wife. On a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta against three named persons, the Police conducted investigation and submitted final report against the 1st petitioner herein alone under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Though three persons were arraigned as accused in the complaint which was forwarded for investigation by the learned Magistrate, the Police did not find the involvement of the alleged accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, final report was submitted against the 1st accused alone. During trial, the 2nd respondent herein gave evidence implicating the others also. In such a situation, the trial court passed orders under Section 319, Cr. P.C., implicating the 2nd petitioner herein as the second accused in the case. The said order was passed on Crl. M.P. No. 5847 of 2013 on 18.11.2013, and it is under challenge in this revision brought by the two accused. Of course, the person really aggrieved is the additional second accused brought under Section 319, Cr.P.C. It is not known why the 1st accused has joined his wife to file revision.

(2.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the real involvement of the second revision petitioner herein in the alleged crime can be reconsidered by the trial court itself as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 CrLJ 3779]. A person brought or arraigned as accused under Section 204 of Cr. P.C. or under Section 319 of Cr. P.C., without being given opportunity of being heard against such a procedure, can very well approach the trial court itself for necessary orders and convince the trial court that the prosecution against him is not legally sustainable. If it is found that the accused brought under Section 319 Cr. P.C. had no role in the alleged crime, and necessary materials are not there to implicate and prosecute the said person, the trial court can drop the proceedings by appropriate orders possible under the law.

(3.) The offences involved in the case are under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. No doubt, it is summons trial. In a proceeding brought otherwise than on complaint, involving only summons trial, the accused can very well make application under Section 258 Cr. P.C. at any stage. This is the spirit of what the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in K.M. Mathew's case. The second revision petitioner herein was brought as additional second accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Of course, she had no notice, and she was not heard. On a perusal of the complaint, I find some allegation against her, and when examined in Court also, the de facto complainant said something against her. Whether these materials are sufficient to proceed against her as accused, will have to be considered by the trial court. It is not known what words or sentences were in fact used or uttered by the accused, or how those words will attract Section 294(b) of I.P.C. So also, it is not specifically stated how criminal intimidation was made by the 2nd accused, or what exactly was the effect of such intimidation. Let all these matters as regards the second revision petitioner be considered by the trial court when application is filed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. When such application is made, the trial court can very well consider the legal objections and pass appropriate orders.