ALOSHIA JOJEPH Vs. REV DR JOSEPH KOLLAMPARAMBIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a complainant has a right to demand that Magistrate shall forward the complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Is it for the Magistrate to decide whether a complaint is to be forwarded for investigation by the Police Can the Magistrate to take cognizance and conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure even if complainant seeks only for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations in the complaint with the sworn statement of the complainant makes out a prima facie case can the Magistrate dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure . These are the relevant aspects to be decided in this revision petition.

(2.) Revision petitioner filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irattupetta with a prayer to forward the complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Irattupetta for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to direct Sub Inspector of Police to register a case and submit a report after investigation. First respondent the accused in the complaint is the Principal of St. George College, Aruvithura where husband of the revision petitioner is working as Professor in Malay alam. Their daughter Indulekha was a student of that College and was also the Vice-Chairman of the College Union for the period 2006-2007. Due to publication of a book by the husband of the revision petitioner containing criticism against the religious leadership, relationship between the husband of the revision petitioner had the first respondent got strained. So also the relationship of the first respondent with the daughter of the revision petitioner. Alleging indiscipline Indulekha was dismissed from the College. Challenging the same Writ Petition was filed before this Court. The allegation in the complaint was that on 29-3-2007 along with the order of the High Court permitting Indulekha to appear for the university examination revision petitioner along with Indulekha reached the college office. But hall ticket was not issued on that day. They were directed to come on the next day. The allegation is that on 29-3-2007 by about 9 a.m. revision petitioner and Indulekha came to the college office and when they asked for the hall ticket, first respondent asked revision petitioner whether her daughter has no father as he did not accompany them. It is alleged that accused also asked her whether her husband is not the father of her daughter and why he did not come along with them and is it because he is abusing the daughter, thereby implying that father is sexually illtreating the daughter. It is contended that the said words spoken by first respondent amount to an insult on the modesty of revision petitioner and he thereby committed the offence under Section 509 of IPC. Eventhough revision petitioner preferred a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, no action was taken and it is alleged that it was due to the influence of the first respondent. On these allegations revision petitioner sought an order to forward the complaint for investigation.

(3.) The complaint was received by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irattupetta on 28-6-2007. On that day the Magistrate passed an order that on going through the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is not desirable to send the case to the police for investigation and hence sworn statement is to be recorded. It was adjourned to 3-7-2007. On that day the sworn statement of revision petitioner was recorded and the complaint was posted for hearing to 10-7-2007. After two further adjournments, arguments were heard on 1 -8-2007 and on 6-8-2007 the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by a reasoned order to the effect that over all considerations and the materials available leads to a definite conclusion that case of the complainant, even if taken as proved, will go to show that words spoken by first respondent were against the husband of the revision petitioner and not against the modesty of the revision petitioner and therefore did not amount to an insult on her modesty and hence offence under Section 509 IPC is not attracted and there is no ground to proceed against the accused. Complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is challenged in the revision petition.