KADER S O MOIDUNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is whether the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnani has committed any illegal irregularity or impropriety in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act against the petitioners herein. The F. I. statement was taken based on Ext. A1 complaint presented by the first respondent on 27-9-96 with regard to an incident which is alleged to have taken place more than 4 years preceding the said date, on 22-9-92. According to the petitioners, the Court below has committed an abuse of the process of the Court in the matter of taking cognizance, not only because of the inordinate delay involved in the matter, but also because of the gross negligence on the part of the complainant to prosecute his cause with due diligence. Yet another irregularity pointed out is the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate to call for and verify the result of investigation conducted by the police earlier with regard to the very same occurrence.

(2.) On 22-9-92, Crime No. 144/92 of Changaramkulam Police Station was registered by the 1st petitioner herein alleging offence under Sections 341 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act against the present 2nd respondent. On the very next day, based on information given by the present 2nd respondent, Crime No. 147/92 of the very same Police Station was also registered. In due course, Crime 144/92 ended up in a charge-sheet while the latter case ended up in a refer report, produced in the case as Annexure A2, on 20-11-92.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, based on the charge-sheet in Crime No. 144/92, C. C. 70/95 of the J. F. C. M. Court, Ponnani was proceeded with and the case has progressed in the matter of trial and soon after the incident, the 2nd respondent fled from India and worked abroad. It was only on 27-9-96 that he thought it fit to file a private complaint with regard to the very same cause of action, as was mentioned in Crime No. 147/92. The impact of the cognizance taken pursuant to Annexure-A1 complaint is that it may have to be treated as a counter case to C. C. 70/95 and even the proceedings held in the case so far may be affected. It is pointed out that in this state of affairs, the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent should not have been entertained at all.