ALEX K JOHN Vs. JACOB JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing that charges be framed against them, the petitioners, the police officials have come before this court with the prayer to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The vitally relevant facts can be stated thus. On the evening of 14/02/1994, police men appear to have gone to the shop of the complainant. They had allegedly detected an offence under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. The occupants of the shop allegedly took to their heals. No one including the complainant could be apprehended. A crime was registered. On 15/2/1994 at about 2.30 a.m, the complainant was allegedly arrested from his house. He was taken to the police station. He was allegedly tortured at the police station. He allegedly suffered injuries. He was enlarged on bail on the next morning. He proceeded to the doctor who examined him and issued a wound certificate. He was referred to the medical college hospital. He allegedly suffered a fracture of the vertebral process. His father filed a complaint before the Superintendent of police. A crime was registered at the Erumely police station. Investigation was conducted. The police submitted Annexure IV report referring the case as one of mistake of fact. Aggrieved by the action of the police, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. Annexure I is the copy of the complaint. As many as five accused persons were arrayed as accused - petitioners 1 and 2 as accused 1 and 2 in that complaint. The learned Magistrate, after observing the procedure prescribed by law chose to take cognizance and issue process against the first petitioner/accused alone. Aggrieved by that order - of not taking cognizance against accused 2 to 5, the respondent/complainant came before this court. By Annexure V order, another bench of this court modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It was found that accused 1 and 2 are liable to be proceeded against. The operative portion of that order, copy of which is produced as Annexure V reads as follows:

(3.) Thereupon the learned Magistrate after securing the presence of both petitioners proceeded to conduct enquiry under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The petitioners herein (accused 1 and 2) filed an application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by Annexure 7 order, took the view that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure VII, the impugned order.