IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 393 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RC 116/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THANABAL R K KASHINATHAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KASHINADHAN,
BLK-306,06-355,HOUGANG,AVE5,
SINGAPORE,530306
BY ADV D.FEROZE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 ANIL KUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN,
VIJAYA VILASAM HOUSE,
NEAR MARADU TEMPLE, MARADU,
ERNAKULAM - 682304
3 SANKARANARAYANAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. PADMANABHA MENON,
VIJAYA VILASAM HOUSE,
NEAR MARADU TEMPLE, MARADU,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682304
ADV.C.S.HRITHIK, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P No. 393 OF 2022
2
ORDER
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.231/2018 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC against respondents 2 and 3. The police after completing the investigation, submitted a refer report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O), Ernakulam which is numbered as RC 116/2019. The petitioner submitted an objection to the aforesaid refer report through his Power of Attorney, as he was working abroad. As per the order impugned in this case, the objections raised by the petitioner has been rejected and the refer report was accepted. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the aforesaid order.
2. Heard Sri.Firoze D, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.SHrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Considering the nature of relief and the order that is being Crl.R.P No. 393 OF 2022 3 passed, the notices to respondents 2 and 3 are dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order was passed without providing the petitioner a fair opportunity for hearing. It is discernible from the records that, the petitioner was granted several opportunities for pursuing his objections which were not availed by him. However, it is stated by the petitioner that, since he was a person working abroad and also due to the restrictions owing to COVID-19 pandemic, he could not make his appearance before the Court during the proceedings. It is pointed out that, the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not take into the aforesaid aspects.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner was working abroad and the order impugned in this case was passed during a period when the restrictions on account of COVID-19 pandemic were in existence, I deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner for pursuing his objections.
In such circumstances, the order dated 26/02/2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O), Ernakulam in RC 116/2019, in Crime No.231/2018 of Ernakulam Town South Police Crl.R.P No. 393 OF 2022 4 Station is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter afresh, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders on the objection submitted by the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of one month from today for pursuing the objections.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk