M.P.CHOTHY Vs. ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.1564 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam. He filed a private complaint, alleging offences under Sec. 506(i) and Sec. 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') apart from Sec. 7(1)(b) and 12 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence under sec. 506(i) of IPC. Petitioner challenges the refusal of the Magistrate to take cognizance of other offences alleged.

(2.) Petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community. He alleged that he is a consumer of Indane Gas and had raised certain complaints against the dealer of Indane Gas with the office of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'IOC'). Since his complaints were not redressed, petitioner decided to meet the Area Manager of IOC, and for that purpose, he went to the office of the said officer on 30/6/2020. However, the accused, who was the security supervisor of IOC, refused permission for the petitioner to enter the Office. Later, the accused gave a telephone number of a person to be contacted. When the petitioner contacted that person over phone, on the number provided by the accused, the response from the other end was by a lady who was annoying and aggressive. Therefore petitioner decided to visit the office of the Area Manager of IOC personally to complain. When the petitioner reached the office and informed the accused of the purpose of his visit, the accused attempted to attack the petitioner and he felt threatened, attracting the offence under Sec. 506 IPC.

(3.) Petitioner also alleged that when he made a written complaint to the Senior Area Manager, a reply was issued by the General Manager, which was unsatisfactory. Therefore petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, enquiring whether there was any restriction in permitting anyone to enter the office of the Area Manager. The reply issued did not inform about any such restriction, and hence, the petitioner alleges that he came to the knowledge that there was no restriction in permitting anyone inside the office of the Area Manager, and the decision not to let the petitioner inside the office was taken by the accused himself.