OOMMEN CHANDY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the Magistrate invoking the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P merely .C. functioning as a 'Post Office' for forwarding anything and everything filed in the form of a complaint?

(2.) These are precisely the questions to be answered here. Petitioners in O.P.(Crl.) No.50/2016 and O.P.(Crl.) No.51/2016 are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the 2nd complaint by the respondent herein as CMP No.135/2016 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), may be intended to be read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 1st respondent in the CMP was the then Chief Minister and the 2nd respondent in the CMP was the then Minister for Electricity of the State of Kerala.

(3.) The 2nd respondent herein had preferred the complaint based on some revelations allegedly made by a lady named Saritha.S.Nair, who is the 8th respondent in the complaint, against these petitioners and some others, before the Commission appointed by the Government to probe into the 'Solar Scam', and also before some newspapers and news channels. The court below, immediately on getting Ext.P1 complaint, straight away forwarded the same to the Director of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., through Ext.P2 order. Inter alia the learned Special Judge has observed in Ext.P2 that "However it is made clear that while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate or the Special Judge is acting as a post office." It was by making such an observation, the court below has chosen to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order and also aggrieved by the tenor and contents of Ext.P1 complaint, these petitioners have come up under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for getting Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P2, quashed.