GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. MOHAMMED SALAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' in short) by the petitioner, challenging the order dtd. 21/12/2013, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, in C.M.P.No.839 of 2011, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Sec. 203 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Crime No.868 of 2010 was registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station on 8/9/2010, at 17.00 hours under Ss. 279 and 338 of IPC based on the First Information Statement of the petitioner recorded on 8/9/2010 at 04.00 p.m., from a hospital wherein he was under treatment due to the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. On completion of the investigation, on 10/11/2010, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha, filed a final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Muvattupuzha, referring the case as false.

(3.) On receipt of notice about the filing of the final report, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed C.M.P.No.839 of 2011 under Sec. 190 Cr.P.C. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and a witness, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, which is extracted below: "This is a protest complaint filed, aggrieved by the refer report filed by the police in crime No. 868/2010 of Muvatupuzha police Station as "false". On going through the sworn statements of the complainant and his witness and also the refer report, it can be seen that there is nothing improper in the investigation done by the police which revealed that the motor accident occurred due to the negligence of the complainant himself as he was riding the scooter on the wrong side of the road near the patrol pump and there was no negligent act on the part of the accused. It appears that the sole intention of the complainant is to get a motor accident claim by foisting a false case against the accused. There is no sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed u/s 203 Cr.PC."