PULLIKKADAN NARAYANAN Vs. JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code by one of the accused to get himself impleaded in the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against the order passed by the Magistrate, accepting the referred report filed by the investigating police.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the decision of the legal contentions raised in this petition are briefly as follows: Regarding certain incidents that took place on 20.3.1983, the first respondent gave a complaint to the second respondent against certain police officials of the State of Kerala, including the petitioner herein which thesecond respondent registered as Crime No.45 of 1983 of Cherambadi policestation for offences under Secs.147, 342, 364, 384, 323 and 327, Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Coimbatore Urban Unit, filed a final report stating that though the investigation revealed that the petitioner and others had committed the offences complained of and sanction was sought for from the Government of Kerala, through the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Government of Tamil Nadu had conveyed its decision to drop further action against the petitioner and the other police officials from Kerala and that therefore, the case might be closed and further action dropped. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur by order dated 16.2.1987 on the basis of the above report, dropped further action in the case. The above order of the learned Magistrate is challenged by the first respondent, who has filed Criminal R.C. No.353 of 1987 in this Court. The petitioner, who was the first accused in the complaint seeks to get himself impleaded as one of the respondents, in the above Revision petition on the ground that he is a necessary party in the revision and he has to make his submissions before this Court, failing which irreparable damage would be caused to his career.

(3.) NO doubt, the right of notice and right of audience of a private party, viz., the informant, in proceedings relating to action to be taken on a final report filed by the police, after investigation was recognised by the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285. Therein the Court held that before the Magistrate decides to drop proceedings on a final report filed under Sec.173(2)(i) of the Code, either agreeing with the report or disagreeing with the report, the Magistrate is bound to give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. This was found to be necessary in view of the general scheme of the Code which required under Sec.154(2) of the Code to furnish the informant a copy of the F.I.R. free of cost and also under Sec.157(2) of the Code, to inform the informant if the police decided not to investigate the case and also under Sec.173(2)(i) which required the police officer to communicate the informant, the action taken by him and the report forwarded by him to the Magistrate. This is so because the informant, after giving information, does not fade away but is interested in the result of the investigation, and should, therefore, be apprised of the same by the investigating agency. From the above scheme of the Code, the Supreme Court in the above decision extended the same principle, proceedings relating to the Magistrate dropping action after the filing of a final report under Sec.173(2)(i) of the Code. The informant therefore, in those circumstances is entitled to a right of notice and a right of audience. In the same decision, the Supreme Court considered the right of notice and the right of audience of an injured person or a relation of the deceased, who might not be the informant. The Court held that the injured person or a relative of the deceased, though not entitled to 'a right of notice had a locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of the consideration of the final report and if he wanted to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate was bound to hear him. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that in a revision by a private party, even in a pre-process stage the interests of an accused are likely to to be prejudicially affected and that, therefore, extending the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, he would be entitled to a right of notice as in the case of a complaint or at least to a right of auidence as in the case of a relative of a deceased or an injured, who is not the informant.