Ajith v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 185/2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& ``` ## **`SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER:`** ``` AJITH AGED 32 YEARS KATTIKKULAM HOUSE, MATTATHUR.P.O., KODAKARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684 BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA SWATHY A.P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 ARUN S.H.O., KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684` - `2 SURESH KUMAR S.H.O., THADIYITTA PARAMBU POLICE STATION, ALUVA MUNNAR ROAD, VAZHAKULAM., PIN - 683105` - `3 C.R.SANTHOSH DYSP, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680307` - `4 MIDHUN S.H.O., VELLIKKULANGARA POLICE STATION, VELLIKKULANGARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680699` - `5 FRANCIS AGED 68 YEARS S/O.KUNJUVAREETH, EATTUMANOORKKARAN HOUSE, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684` - `6 GEORGE ANTONY AGED 76 YEARS S/O.KORA, KUREEKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 683562` - `7 STENIN AGED 36 YEARS S/O.GEORGE ANTONY, KUREEKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 683562` - `8 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031` ``` 2 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` BY ADVS. Pranoy K. Kottaram Kottaram GEORGE MATHEWS(K/550/2000) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` REKHA,SR PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **K.BABU, J.** ------------------------------------ **CRL.REV.PET.No.483 of 2022 -------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** The Challenge in this Crl.Rev. Petition is to the order dated 30.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.185/2021 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, dismissing the complaint preferred by the Revision Petitioner against respondent Nos.1 to 7. 2. The complainant is a politician and social worker. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are Police personnel and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are accused in criminal cases. The allegations levelled against respondent Nos.1 to 7 are: (a). That on 19.09.2020, the complainant’s friend Aarsha made an oral complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and she further made a written complaint with respondent No.1 on 23.09.2020. But respondent No.1 did not register a case. Instead of that, on 01.10.2020, he registered a case on the basis of another statement purported to have been given by Aarsha. ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` Thus respondent No.1 has committed offence punishable u/s 166 A of I.P.C. (b). Respondent No.1 failed to register case on the basis of the complaint given by Aarsha and did not issue receipt upon receiving the complaint. (c). Respondent No.1 forced Aarsha to withdraw another case in which she is the complainant. (d). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 conspired with the accused in crime Nos.1368/2020 and 1369/2020 of Thadiyittaparamb police station. (e). Respondent No.1 persuaded respondent No.5, the accused in crime No.1369/2020 to file a false complaint against the petitioner and his counsel. (f). Respondent No.1 before registration of the case went to the house of the complainant, criminally intimidated her and attempted to influence her. (g). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 recommended action against the petitioner u/s.107 Cr.P.C. and included him in the ‘rowdy list’. (h). Respondent No.3 filed a false affidavit and report before the High Court of Kerala. ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` (i). Respondent Nos.1 to 4 conspired with respondent Nos.5 to 7 and received illegal gratification from quarry owners. (j). Respondent Nos.1 to 4 registered false case against the petitioner and falsely included him in the ‘rowdy list’. The respondents aided the accused in crime No.1869/2020 to obtain wrongful gain and helped him to escape from the clutches of law. 3. The learned Special Judge, on a perusal of the complaint, recorded that no prima-facie materials were placed before the Court in support of the allegations in the complaint. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were specific allegations against the respondents regarding the receipt of illegal gratification, criminal misconduct and dereliction of duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revision petitioner had specifically alleged that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 obtained wrongful gain. The revision petitioner alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 7 committed offences punishable under ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Sections 13(1) (d) (ii) and 13(1)(d) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120 B and 109 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.. ## 6. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Special Judge is extracted below:- “4. The learned Counsel for the complainant/ petitioner contended that R1 to R4 registered false case against the petitioner, falsely included him in the rowdy list and further that the respondents caused wrongful gain to the accused in crime No.1869/2020 and helped him to escape from the clutches of law. According to me, the above said alleged acts were done while discharging the official duties of R1 to R4 and the same do not amount to criminal misconduct. In this context, there is no detail provides as to what was the extraneous consideration or ulterior motive. An inference could not be drawn merely on the basis of suspicion. Further, the record reveals that no complaint or other material exists which could form the basis of the said allegation. 5. Even if, R1 to R4’s act is considered to be dereliction of duty, it cannot be treated as criminal misconduct. 6. The complainant does not have any locus standi in respect of the allegation that R1 to R4 intimidated Aarsha to settle the case and attempt to influence her.” 7. The learned Special Judge has taken note of the fact that there were no details regarding the extraneous consideration or ulterior motive of respondent Nos.1 to 7 in the alleged commission of the acts. On a perusal of the materials it is revealed that no credible materials were produced before the Court below by the revision petitioner. ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` 8. It is also important to note that what matters is not just that the complainant alleges an offence. It is profitable to refer to the observation of this Court in **Manoj Abraham IPS** v. **Chandrasekharan Nair P.P and another (2017(3) KHC 983)** . In **Manoj Abraham** (Supra), this Court observerd thus: - “…...The complainant must disclose an offence. The term ‘disclose’ does not simply mean, that the complaint alleges or reveals on offence. Simply on a complaint which is not supported by any material, investigation cannot be ordered by the Special Courts under the PC Act. The court must be satisfied that an offence is ‘disclosed’ by the materials including documents, circumstances, etc. substantiating the allegations in the complaint”. 9. There is nothing to show that the impugned order is perverse or untenable in law. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the Court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power of the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of ``` 8 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the Court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. (vide: **Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan** v. **Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123]** . All the challenges in the revision petition fail. Therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** saap ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 483/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Copy of Order ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN CRL. M.P.NO.185/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. ``` //True copy//PA to Judge