Kerala High Court
B Ravindran Pillai @ Dr Ravi Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Friday, the 26th day of August 2022 / 4th Bhadra, 1944
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.MC NO. 5901 OF 2022
CRIME NO.949/2018 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, Alappuzha
CC 417/2021 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ALAPPUZHA,
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:
B RAVINDRAN PILLAI @ DR RAVI PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNA
PILLAI RAVIGEETHAM, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM-691008, PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT VILLA NO.1316, ROAD NO. 7921, BLOCK NO.579, AI JANABIYAH,
BAHRAIN-11953,
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2. SEBY ANTONY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O DAVID ANTONY, ARUKKATTIL
HOUSE, POOMKAVU PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688521
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings as against the
Petitioner in C.C.No.417 of 2021 pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alappuzha, pending disposal of the above Criminal
Miscellaneous case.
This Application coming on for admission upon perusing the
application and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN
NAIR), AKHIL SURESH, ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, ATHUL M.V., Advocates for
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the R1, the court passed the
following:
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
---------------------
Crl.M.C.No.5901 of 2022
---------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
ORDER
Admit.
The learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the 1 st
respondent. Issue notice to the 2nd respondents.
Crl.M.A No. 1 of 2022
The petitioner is the 1st accused and the offences alleged are
under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. The
case is registered on the basis of a protest complaint submitted by
the 2nd respondent after the police filed a refer report in the
matter. Even going by the case of the 2 nd respondent the offences
were committed outside India. The specific case of the petitioner
is that, the proceedings could not have been initiated, without
sanction as contemplated under the Proviso to Section 188 of the
Cr.P.C. The said contention was raised before the learned
Magistrate but the same was dismissed as per Annexure A8 order
and the same is under challenge.
Crl.M.C No. 5901 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that, the aforesaid contention was dismissed by the learned
Magistrate by placing reliance upon certain judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the subject matter was
the prosecution on the basis of a final report submitted by the
police under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C, whereas in this case
the proceedings are on the basis of protest complaint which can
only be treated as a proceeding initiated on the basis of a
private complaint as contemplated under Section 190 read with
200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it comes
within the expression "inquiry" as defined under Section 2(g) of
the Cr.PC, and no such inquiry can be carried out in the absence
of a sanction as contemplated under the Proviso to Section 188
of the Cr.P.C. He places reliance upon the decision rendered by
this Court in Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala and
Another [2019 (3) KLT 1034].
After considering all the materials placed on record, I find
a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, there
shall be an interim order staying all further proceedings against
Crl.M.C No. 5901 of 2022
the petitioner in C.C 417/2021 on the file the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Alappuzha for a period of four months.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
rpk
26-08-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
