R. Anil Kumar v. Pukhrambam Victoria Devi and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/6TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1505 of 2013** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 58/2012 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **R.ANIL KUMAR, CO-ORDINATOR, NATIONAL GAMES, SECRETARIAT, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PUKHRAMBAM VICTORIA DEVI, AGED 28 YEARS,** **D/O.MANIHAR SINGH, TC 25/2184 THAIVILA LANE, THAMBANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JITHESH. R** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1505 of 2013** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** **---------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE -------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1505 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of February, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.58/2012 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in the above case, which was filed for the offence punishable U/s.420, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC, by the 1[st] respondent. Her allegation was that on 15.03.2010, she joined as aerobics instructor in the institute of the petitioner. She was selected after the interview and physical test conducted by 1[st] and 2[nd] accused and offered a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. She was also offered overtime wages at the time of appointment. But after joining with the accused firm, at the time of executing the agreement, with an intention to deceive the 1[st] respondent, the accused Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 2 incorporated a provision to submit all her original certificates with the 1[st] accused and thus the 1[st] respondent was forced to deposit certain original certificates. Moreover, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month was withheld as security of the bond amount. When her mother was bedridden, she went to her native place and after returning from her house, the accused illtreated her and denied job. The 1[st] accused brutally manhandled her and locked in a room and called obscene words. Aggrieved by that, she approached the Museum police. But, due to the influence of the petitioner, no action was taken by them. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent filed the above complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached this Court with the above petition for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to quash all proceedings in the above case. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 3 contended that no illtreatment as alleged was occurred towards the 1[st] respondent and a false case was foisted due to personal enmity. The 1[st] respondent herself refrained from her job deliberately, and filed Anneuxre-I complaint. No document was entrusted with the petitioner as alleged. There was only a dispute with regard to the employment and since it is purely a civil matter and is to be settled with the labour department, no cognizance is possible at this stage. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 4. The inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the three grounds mentioned therein. It Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 4 can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court in the _**State of Haryana** v_ . _**Bhajanlal**_ , the Supreme Court pointed out that: [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] “(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). (5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 5 personal vengeance. ## The Apex Court in _**Madhu Limaye**_ v. _**State of Maharashtra**_ ## [(1977) 4 SCC 551] held as follows: The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions: (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted n any other provision of the Code. 5. The allegation of the petitioner is that a false complaint was registered against him by the 1[st] respondent. I have gone through Annexure-I complaint. The petitioner admitted the employment of the 1[st] respondent in the firm conducted by the 1[st] accused in the above case. He also admitted that he is working as a Co-ordinator, National Games, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1[st] accused is his wife and Managing Director of Fit Life Aerobics Centre, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 6 Analysing the averments in the complaint, I am of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and his wife and this is a matter of evidence. When prima facie case is made out, it is the responsibility of the Magistrate to look into the averment as to whether there is any case to proceed or not. In such a situation, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he may be permitted to take all contentions in the trial court with regard to discharge as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, if such contentions are taken up by the counsel in the trial court, the learned Magistrate shall consider that aspect and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 7 Crl.M.C.No.1505/13 8