Ajith vs Arun
2023 Latest Caselaw 10937 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                     CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 185/2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER&
                        SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER:

          AJITH
          AGED 32 YEARS
          KATTIKKULAM HOUSE, MATTATHUR.P.O., KODAKARA, THRISSUR.,
          PIN - 680684
          BY ADVS.
          LINDONS C.DAVIS
          E.U.DHANYA
          SWATHY A.P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     ARUN
          S.H.O., KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA, THRISSUR.,
          PIN - 680684
    2     SURESH KUMAR
          S.H.O., THADIYITTA PARAMBU POLICE STATION, ALUVA MUNNAR
          ROAD, VAZHAKULAM., PIN - 683105
    3     C.R.SANTHOSH
          DYSP, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680307
    4     MIDHUN
          S.H.O., VELLIKKULANGARA POLICE STATION,
          VELLIKKULANGARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680699
    5     FRANCIS
          AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O.KUNJUVAREETH, EATTUMANOORKKARAN HOUSE, KODAKARA
          VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684
    6     GEORGE ANTONY
          AGED 76 YEARS
          S/O.KORA, KUREEKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, THRISSUR.,
          PIN - 683562
    7     STENIN
          AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O.GEORGE ANTONY, KUREEKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM,
          THRISSUR., PIN - 683562
    8     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022
                                     2

            BY ADVS.
            Pranoy K. Kottaram Kottaram
            GEORGE MATHEWS(K/550/2000)


OTHER PRESENT:

            REKHA,SR PP


     THIS   CRIMINAL      REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022
                                         3

                                  K.BABU, J.
                        ------------------------------------
                    CRL.REV.PET.No.483 of 2022
                    --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023

                              JUDGMENT

The Challenge in this Crl.Rev. Petition is to the order dated

30.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.185/2021 on the file of the Enquiry

Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, dismissing the

complaint preferred by the Revision Petitioner against respondent

Nos.1 to 7.

2. The complainant is a politician and social worker.

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are Police personnel and respondent

Nos.5 to 7 are accused in criminal cases. The allegations

levelled against respondent Nos.1 to 7 are:

(a). That on 19.09.2020, the complainant's friend Aarsha

made an oral complaint alleging commission of offence

punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and she

further made a written complaint with respondent No.1 on

23.09.2020. But respondent No.1 did not register a case.

Instead of that, on 01.10.2020, he registered a case on the basis

of another statement purported to have been given by Aarsha. CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

Thus respondent No.1 has committed offence punishable u/s 166

A of I.P.C.

(b). Respondent No.1 failed to register case on the basis of

the complaint given by Aarsha and did not issue receipt upon

receiving the complaint.

(c). Respondent No.1 forced Aarsha to withdraw another

case in which she is the complainant.

(d). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 conspired with the accused in

crime Nos.1368/2020 and 1369/2020 of Thadiyittaparamb police

station.

(e). Respondent No.1 persuaded respondent No.5, the

accused in crime No.1369/2020 to file a false complaint against

the petitioner and his counsel.

(f). Respondent No.1 before registration of the case went

to the house of the complainant, criminally intimidated her and

attempted to influence her.

(g). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 recommended action against

the petitioner u/s.107 Cr.P.C. and included him in the 'rowdy

list'.

(h). Respondent No.3 filed a false affidavit and report

before the High Court of Kerala.

CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

(i). Respondent Nos.1 to 4 conspired with respondent

Nos.5 to 7 and received illegal gratification from quarry

owners.

(j). Respondent Nos.1 to 4 registered false case

against the petitioner and falsely included him in the 'rowdy

list'. The respondents aided the accused in crime

No.1869/2020 to obtain wrongful gain and helped him to

escape from the clutches of law.

3. The learned Special Judge, on a perusal of the

complaint, recorded that no prima-facie materials were

placed before the Court in support of the allegations in the

complaint.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that there were specific allegations against the respondents

regarding the receipt of illegal gratification, criminal

misconduct and dereliction of duty. The learned counsel for

the petitioner further submitted that the revision petitioner

had specifically alleged that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 obtained

wrongful gain. The revision petitioner alleged that

respondent Nos. 1 to 7 committed offences punishable under CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

Sections 13(1) (d) (ii) and 13(1)(d) (iii) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and Sections 120 B and 109 r/w Section 34 of

I.P.C..

6. The relevant portion of the order passed by the

Special Judge is extracted below:-

"4. The learned Counsel for the complainant/ petitioner contended that R1 to R4 registered false case against the petitioner, falsely included him in the rowdy list and further that the respondents caused wrongful gain to the accused in crime No.1869/2020 and helped him to escape from the clutches of law. According to me, the above said alleged acts were done while discharging the official duties of R1 to R4 and the same do not amount to criminal misconduct. In this context, there is no detail provides as to what was the extraneous consideration or ulterior motive. An inference could not be drawn merely on the basis of suspicion. Further, the record reveals that no complaint or other material exists which could form the basis of the said allegation.

5. Even if, R1 to R4's act is considered to be dereliction of duty, it cannot be treated as criminal misconduct.

6. The complainant does not have any locus standi in respect of the allegation that R1 to R4 intimidated Aarsha to settle the case and attempt to influence her."

7. The learned Special Judge has taken note of the

fact that there were no details regarding the extraneous

consideration or ulterior motive of respondent Nos.1 to 7 in

the alleged commission of the acts. On a perusal of the

materials it is revealed that no credible materials were

produced before the Court below by the revision petitioner. CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

8. It is also important to note that what matters is not

just that the complainant alleges an offence. It is profitable

to refer to the observation of this Court in Manoj Abraham

IPS v. Chandrasekharan Nair P.P and another (2017(3)

KHC 983). In Manoj Abraham (Supra), this Court

observerd thus:

"......The complainant must disclose an offence. The term 'disclose' does not simply mean, that the complaint alleges or reveals on offence. Simply on a complaint which is not supported by any material, investigation cannot be ordered by the Special Courts under the PC Act. The court must be satisfied that an offence is 'disclosed' by the materials including documents, circumstances, etc. substantiating the allegations in the complaint".

9. There is nothing to show that the impugned order

is perverse or untenable in law. Unless the order passed by

the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the Court is

wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any

relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records,

the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order,

merely because another view is possible. The Revisional

Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole

purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power

of the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court

under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. is not to be equated with

that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the Court, whose

decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or

untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly

unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material

or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the

judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the

courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their

revisional jurisdiction. (vide: Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.

Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123].

All the challenges in the revision petition fail.

Therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE saap CRL.REV.PET NO. 483 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 483/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Copy of Order CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN CRL. M.P.NO.185/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

//True copy//PA to Judge