SAVITHRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.M.P. 1303/12 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-l, ldukki challenges the order of taking cognizance for offence punishable under S.323 I.P.C. The second respondent is a conductor working at K.S.R.T.C., Thodupuzha depot and the petitioner is working as clerk in the District Police Chief's Office, Idukki. The complainant's case is that on 22.04.2011 at 4.45.p.m., while he was proceeding to Alappuzha, the revision petitioner boarded the bus from kuyilimala bus stop in front of the Collectorate Idukki. When he approached the petitioner for issuing the ticket, she told that she is working in the District Police Chief's Office and she need not take any bus ticket. When petitioner refused to accept this argument. She got down from the bus at the bus stop near the police camp after ringing the police control room. When the bus reached at moolamattom depot, the Station Master asked them to cancel the trip stating that there is a complaint against the driver. Subsequently, the second respondent and driver were taken into custody by the Police and brought in the idukki Police Station.

(2.) While the talks were going on, the accused came forward and slapped on the left cheek of the complainant as a result he sustained injury. Subsequently, complainant was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. He was admitted at Taluk Hospital, Thodupuzha and he filed a complaint. On the basic of information given by the complainant, Idukki Police registered a crime 236/11, which was later referred as false. Being aggrieved by that, second respondent filed the above petition, in which, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S.323 I.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that 18 witnesses were examined by the police including the media persons and they did not depose about the commission of offence. The second complaint (Annexure-A) was filed on the same allegation. Therefore, the trial Court without considering the final report, took cognizance of the offence and issued process. In the circumstance, as per Annexure-J order, this court set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. After that direction, the trial court passed Annexure-k order, which is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction.