BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON conclusion of trial in a summons case instituted on complaint, the trial Magistrate initiated steps under S. 250 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the complainant. After considering the cause shown by the complainant against the action proposed, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the complainant to pay compensation to the four accused at the rate of Rs. 50/- The complainant is the petitioner in this revision.

(2.) THE petitioner, a retired Head Master, filed the complaint against the four accused alleging that the accused had trespassed into the land which was in the possession of the petitioner on 30-7-1985 and uprooted about 50 rubber plants therefrom, and criminally intimidated the petitioner who was present at the scene. THE complaint was filed on 5-8-1985. THE explanation for the delay in filing the complaint was that the complainant had lodged a petition in the local police station on the next day of the occurrence but the police did not take any action thereon. A list of two witnesses was submitted by him along with the complaint. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class took cognizance of the offences revealed in the complaint and issued process to the accused. Petitioner was examined as P. W. 1 and one of the persons named in the list was examined as P. W. 2. Three documents marked for prosecution include the certified copy of final decree passed in a civil suit in favour of the complainant. THE accused, when questioned under S. 313 of the Code, denied having done any of the acts alleged in the complaint. THE first accused, a lady aged 35 and a close relative of the complainant, has stated that the complaint was filed falsely to wreak vengeance against her for filing a civil case and a criminal case against the petitioner. D. W. 1 is the advocate commissioner appointed in the civil case. THE evidence of D. W. 1 shows that he had submitted the commission report and plan in the civil court But no document was marked on the defence side.

(3.) S. 250 (1) is extracted below: "if in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made in present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid". The provision corresponds to the same section in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (for short'the repealed Code' ). Under the corresponding provision in the repealed Code the Magistrate should be of opinion that the accusation "was false and either frivolous or vexatious" for initiating action against the complainant. Under the present Code the Magistrate is empowered to take action if he is of opinion that "there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation" against the accused, Evidently, the scope of S. 250 has been widened. Law Commission of india which suggested the change thought it necessary to widen the scope of the provision. However, the principal object in incorporating such a provision remains basically the same in the repealed Code and in the present Code. The object is to deter persons from resorting to prosecution steps without reasonable ground. It is meant to serve as a check on propensities to rush to criminal court recklessly or to make accusation against innocent persons. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that indiscriminate invocation of the powers under this section might often deter a timid person from approaching the portals of law courts, lest genuinely aggrieved persons disowned by witnesses would be exposed to the possibility of being mulcted with compensatory fine. The power under the section should therefore be exercised only in fit and proper cases. Ramaswami, J. in Natesa v. Kanagasabai (AIR 1954 Madras 279) made a survey of the various decisions on the subject and struck a note of caution that "indiscriminate use of the provisions might deter a timid person from approaching the portals of law courts for fear that if per chance his witnesses turned round or somehow did not inspire confidence in the courts he may be mulcted in fine".