M. Abdul Rasheed v. A.M. Mohandas Finance Officer, Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1454 of 2012 () ------------------------------CC.284/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- M.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, T.C.29/659,SHABEER NIVAS SEEVELI NAGAR, KAITHAMUKKU PETTAH(P.O),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/1ST ACCUSED & STATE: --------------- 1. A.M.MOHANDAS FINANCE OFFICER, KERALA LABOUR WELFARE FUND BOARD SAI TOWERS, T.C.28/2857(1),KUNNUMPURAM ROAD VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN-R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.R.P. No.1454 OF 2012 ==========================** Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2012 ## **ORDER** This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.2012 in CMP.No.219 of 2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. C.M.P.No.219 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioner herein alleging commission offence under section 500 read with section 34 I.P.C against accused Nos.1 to 3 therein. As per the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 500 IPC only against first accused therein and taken it on file as C.C.No.284 of 2012 against the first accused. The revision petitioner assails the order only to the extent of refusal to take cognizance of offence as against accused Nos.2 and 3 therein. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Essentially, the contention of the revision **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 2 petitioner is that there is total disregard to the provisions under section 203 Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. No two views are possible in regard to the imperativeness imbedded in section 203 Cr.P.C to briefly record reasons for dismissing a complaint. In this case, as against the first accused/the first respondent herein, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence; but, virtually, refused to take cognizance of offence as against accused Nos.2 and 3. It is not stated in the impugned order that the complaint as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in **Prakasan v. State** **of Kerala** reported in **2008(1) KLT SN 39 (Case No.41)** of this Court and the same, in so far as it is relevant reads thus:- “It is true that the Magistrate has not stated in the impugned order that the complaint so far as it relates to the offences under the Explosive Substances Act is dismissed. But the legal effect of not taking cognizance of those offences is a dismissal of the complaint so far as those offences are concerned. The position will be the same if as against a number of persons arrayed as accused in a private complaint alleging the commission of certain cognizable offences, the Magistrate were to take cognizance of only some of those offences omitting the others or if the **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 3 Magistrate were to take cognizance of all those offences against some of the accused persons alone omitting the others. In such a case, it will amount to a discharge with regard to the offences omitted to be taken cognizance of and with regard to the accused persons excluded from cognizance. If the legal consequence of such omission is a discharge, then the Magistrate is obliged to give reasons. If for dismissing a complaint, the Magistrate is bound to give reasons under S.203, the Magistrate is _a fortiori_ obliged to give reasons for the piecemeal dismissal of the complaint as well.” 3. Evidently, while proceeding against the first accused after taking cognizance under section 500 IPC and taking the case on file as C.C.No.284 of 2012, there is absolute absence of any whisper about the case against accused Nos.2 and 3. There can be no legal impediment in taking cognizance of an offence only against one of the accused and register case against the said accused. However, in terms of the provisions under section 203 Cr.P.C, it is imperative on the learned Magistrate to record briefly the reasons for dismissing the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in **Fr.Abraham v. Thomas** reported in **1989 (1) KLT** **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 4 **85.** To bring home the point, the petitioner also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in **Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose** reported in **AIR 1963 SC 1430** . As noticed earlier, in the decision in **Prakasan's case** (supra), it has been held that a Magistrate taking cognizance of only some of the offences or if Magistrate were to take cognizance of all those offences only against some of the accused persons omitting the others, he has to give reasons. The Hon'ble apex court in **Chandra Deo Singh's** case (supra) held that the complainant is entitled to know why his complaint stands dismissed with a view to consider whether to approach the revisional court. Keeping him ignorance of the reasons clearly would prejudice his rights to move the revisional court and when he takes up the matter to revisional court, it would render tasks before the court, more particularly, in view of the limited scope of the provisions under sections 438, 439 (sections 397 and 401 respectively of the new Code). In fact, it is relying on said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the decision in **Fr.Abraham v. Thomas (1989(1) KLT 85)** was rendered. The situation obtained in this case is squarely covered **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 5 by the decision in **Prakasan's case** (supra). In that case, a complaint was filed alleging commission of offence under the Explosive Substances Act against certain persons; but, cognizance was taken only against some of them. Considering the rival submissions, this Court held that the learned Magistrate was bound to give reasons in terms of the provisions under section 203 Cr.P.C for the piecemeal dismissal of the complaint. 4. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, there can be no doubt with respect to the position that the learned Magistrate was bound to give reasons for not taking cognizance against accused Nos.2 and 3 therein viz., virtually dismissing the complaint in respect of them. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal no reason whatsoever as assigned for the same. In the said circumstances and in the light of the decisions referred above, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 5. The next question to be considered is whether in such **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 6 circumstances, it is incumbent on this Court to issue notice to accused Nos.2 and 3 in Annexure- A complaint. Evidently, the said accused persons were not issued with notice by the learned Magistrate. True that in terms of the provisions under section 401 (2) Cr.P.C, no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by Pleader. Thus the inhibition is on the court, rather, the said provision will not confer any such right, as such, on the accused or any other person. The inhibition is that the court shall not make an order to the prejudice of the accused unless such accused or other person had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his defence. In this case, I do not propose to pass any order which is prejudicial to accused or any other person. As already noticed earlier, evidently, the learned Magistrate had not followed the mandatory provisions under section 203 Cr.P.C for dismissing the complaint against accused Nos.2 and 3 in Annexure- A. Issuing notice to those accused persons after directing the revision petitioner to implead them as parties to this revision petition also will not and cannot serve any purpose as they **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 7 cannot cure the inherent illegality crept in the impugned order in regard to the non-assignment of reasons. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in **Somu v. State** reported in **1985 Crl.L.J 1309 (Mad.)** . It was held therein that the accused have no right of audience in a revision against the dismissal of a complaint case if they were not served with summons. The learned Magistrate had failed to record reasons in brief in terms of section 203 Cr.P.C despite the aforesaid decisions mandating for the same. In the light of the decisions referred (supra) and also in view of the specific provision under section 203 Cr.P.C, I have no hesitation to hold the impugned order as nullity, as against accused Nos.2 and 3. As already noticed, it is not stated in impugned order in C.M.P.No.219 of 2012 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram that said complaint is dismissed as against accused Nos.2 and 3 and at the same time, cognizance was taken against accused No.1. Therefore, even while interfering with the impugned order, it need not be set aside as such. Therefore, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:- **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 8 The learned Magistrate shall restore the complaint as against accused Nos.2 and 3 as well and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions under section 203 Cr.P.C before proceeding further with C.C.No.284 of 2012 on the file of that court. It is made clear that this court has not made any observation on merits. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)** ## **spc/** **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 9 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.R.P.1454/12** 10