Dr. C. Ravindran v. State of Kerala and Dr. C.P. Sreelekha

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4409 OF 2015 ``` ``` CC NO.434 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST ``` ## **`CLASS ,KUNNAMANGALAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` DR.C.RAVINDRAN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.K.K.V.GOVINDAN, NAVANEETH, P.H.E.D. ROAD,ERANHIPALAM, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673020. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2DR.C.P.SREELEKHA AGED 40 YEARS W/O.DR.V.JITHESH, RESIDING AT 39/12, DREAMS,PADINJARETHARA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL. S SRI.RENJITH T.R, SR PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4409 of 2015** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of August, 2024** ## **ORDER** This criminal miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.434/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. It is a complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent. Originally a case was registered by the Police and the case was referred, as evident by Annexure-XIV. Thereafter the present complaint is filed and based on the same, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance, as evident by Anneuxre-XVI order under Sections 323, 506(i) and 509 IPC. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted in Annexure-XV complaint, no offence is made out. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this case. The counsel for the 2[nd] CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **3** respondent submitted that there is prima facie case and this Court may not interfere with the matter invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. It is an admitted fact that the Police registered a case and the matter is referred by the Police, as evident by Annexure-XIV refer report. Annexure-XVI is the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. A perusal of the same would not show that the learned Magistrate considered the refer report while taking cognizance. This Court in **Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran** [2009 (1) KLT 794] considered this point in detail. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: “12. If the original complaint stood dismissed by the acceptance of the refer report submitted after investigation the protest complaint if any filed can only be treated as a second complaint. If so, the protest complaint will lie only if there was a manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the earlier order or new facts which the complainant had no knowledge of or with reasonable diligence could not have brought forward in the previous proceedings is adduced. When this is the legal position, it is notlawful to the Magistrate to ignore the final report CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **4** submitted by the police under Section 173(2) of the Code. Magistrate is bound to consider the final report and decide which of the options available to him is to be exercised.” ## 5. Similarly in **Kader v. State of Kerala** [1999 (3) KLT 55], this Court considered the same point which is extracted hereunder: “7. The Court noted that the scope of enquiry under S.202 is the ascertainment of the truth or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court for the limited purpose of finding out whether the prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. Nevertheless, the Court has a duty to protect the interest of the absent accused also because at the particular stage, the accused has no say in the matter and the matter is decided without notice to him. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent the accused therein from being called upon to face obviously frivolous complaint and to find what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. The CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **5** Magistrate has a duty not only to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made in the complaint but also to protect the interest of the absent accused in such matters. What all matters he should take into consideration to arrive at the conclusion that he should take cognizance of the offence, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He has necessarily to consider the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under S.200 Cr.P.C. as also of the witnesses examined under S.202 of the Cr.P.C. Along with that, he has also to consider the result of enquiry or investigation, if any, held by the police. It cannot be said that the said data is not an essential factor. The consideration of the materials under S.202 of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and cannot be done in a perfunctory or mechanical manner or by adopting a superficial approach.” 6. In the light of the above judgments, I think the matter is to be reconsidered by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of with following directions: 1. Annexure-XVI order dated 10.02.2015 in C.M.P No.4682/2012 in C.C.No.434/2015 is set aside. **6** ## CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam is directed to reconsider the complaint in the light of Annexure-XIV and also in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in **Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran** [2009 (1) KLT 794] and **Kader v. State of Kerala** [1999 (3) KLT 55]. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **7** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4409/2015`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.03.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT RECEIVED FROM ASSISTANT WARDEN DATED 15.03.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 17.03.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-IV: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT 17.03.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-V: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.03.2012. ANNEXURE-VI: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTFILEDBEFORETHE CHAIRPERSON,WOMEN'SCOMPLAINTS REDRESSAL CELL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DATED 19.03.2012 (PRE-DATED AS 17.03.2012). ANNEXURE-VII: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATIONSUBMITTEDBYTHE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, WOMEN'S COMPLAINT REDRESSAL CELL, MEDICAL COLLEGE KOZHIKODE DATED 26.03.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-VIII: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE WOMEN'S COMPLAINT REDRESSAL CELL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DATED 12.04.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-IX: TRUE COPY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY CCM DATED 30.05.2012. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-X: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATEVANITHACOMMISSIONDATED 24.03.2012. ``` CrlM.C..No.4409/2015 **8** |**`ANNEXURE-XI: TRUE COPY OF THE`**| |---| |**`EXPLANATION`**<br>**`SUBMITTED`**<br>**`BY`**<br>**`THE`**| |**`PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE VANITHA`**| |**`COMMISSION DATED 2.6.2012.`**| |**`ANNEXURE-XII: TRUE COPY OF THE`**| |**`COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,`**| |**`MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION DATED`**| |**`1.4.2012 (COMPLAINT IS PRE-DATED AS`**| |**`24.03.2012).`**| |**`ANNEXURE-XIII: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.`**| |**`REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF`**| |**`POLICE,`**<br>**`MEDICAL`**<br>**`COLLEGE`**<br>**`POLICE`**| |**`STATION,`**<br>**`KOZHIKODE`**<br>**`AS`**<br>**`CRIME`**| |**`NO.160/2012 DATED 1.4.2012.`**| |**`ANNEXURE-XIV: TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE`**| |**`REPORT FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF`**| |**`POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION`**| |**`DATED 26.06.2012.`**| |**`ANNEXURE-XV: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE`**| |**`COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`**| |**`MAGISTRATE'S`**<br>**`COURT,`**<br>**`KUNNAMANGALAM`**| |**`DATED 19.09.2012.`**| |**`ANNEXURE-XVI: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE`**| |**`ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST`**| |**`CLASS`**<br>**`MAGISTRATE'S`**<br>**`COURT,`**| |**`KUNNAMANGALAM DATED 10.02.2015 IN`**| |**`C.C.NO.434/2015.`**|