Thanabal R K Kashinathan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6810 Ker

            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

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

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