GIREESAN. R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a businessman is the 1st accused in C.C No.767 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kollam. The said case originated from a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent as Crl.M.P.No.5943/2010 under Section190(i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

(2.) The allegation in the complaint was that, accused, four in number, restrained the 2nd respondent at 8 p.m on 14.09.2010 while he was moving in a motor cycle through the road near High School Junction, Kollam. It is alleged that the accused attacked the 2nd respondent, questioning him, how he dare to file a case against a lady named Geethu, who is none other than the 4th accused in C.C No.767 of 2011. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kollam has recorded the statement of the de facto complainant and an occurrence witness and arrived at the conclusion that prima facie grounds are existing for proceeding with the matter further and took cognizance of the case on 21.10.2011. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached this court seeking to quash the said order on the ground that it will not sustain in law.

(3.) Sri.Abraham John, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Alexander George, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard in detail. The impugned order and the materials produced in support of the averments in the Crl.M.C are perused. It is the argument of Sri.Abraham John, learned counsel for the petitioner that the private complaint, upon which cognizance was taken, was not supported by any witness list. According to him, the place of incident shown in the private complaint, which was taken cognizance of as C.C No.767 of 2011 by the learned Magistrate is the same as the one shown in Annexure A5 charge sheet filed on the basis of the First Information Report registered by the first respondent, but it was shown as different. According to him, both the cases are registered on the basis of the very same incident occurred on the same day, but since the place was shown as different, there is no scope for the allegations in the private complaint to sustain. It is further stated by the learned counsel that Annexure A6 appended with this Crl.M.C. discloses the involvement of the second respondent in several pending cases. According to him, in view of the pendency of several cases disclosed from Annexure A6, the allegations levelled in the private complaint can only be taken as a malafide measure of the 2nd respondent to trap the petitioner herein. The learned counsel has submitted on the basis of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v Bhajanlal and others reported in (AIR 1992 SC 604) that in a criminal proceeding, when sufficient reason is there to show that the complainant has acted malafide or that a proceeding was maliciously instituted with ulterior motives to wreck vengeance, the court can interfere with the matter to put an end to the proceedings by exercising the power vested on it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel, in the case on hand, sufficient reasons are there to establish that the private complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent out of his malafide intention to trap the petitioner.