Kerala High Court
Ajimol Moncy vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024
- 1 -
2025:KER:26957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5701 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2136/2020 OF Koipuram Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 IN CRRP NO.6 OF 2021 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/REVISION PETIITONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
AJIMOL MONCY
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. MONCY GEORGE, PEEDIKAYIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE,
VALAKUZHI P.O, EZHUMATTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689544.
BY ADVS.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
AMAL AMIR ALI
MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024
- 2 -
2025:KER:26957
2 VALSAMMA JACOB
MANNETHU MALAYIL VEEDU, NJALIBHAGAM, KAVIYOOR P.O
KAVIYOOR VILLAGE THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689582.
BY ADVS.
T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
ANNIE M.ABRAHAM(K/000869/1995)
KURIEN BIJU(K/002712/2023)
SEENA.C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024
- 3 -
2025:KER:26957
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C is preferred by the defacto complainant in
Crime No.2136/2020 of Koipuram Police Station,
Pathanamthitta challenging Annexure-A3 Order, as also,
Annexure-A4 Order, which dismissed a revision carried from
Annexure-A3 Order.
2. The bare minimum facts are as follows:
On the basis of an F.I.S preferred by the petitioner,
Annexure-A1 F.I.R was registered with Crime No.2136/2020 by
the Koipuram Police Station, canvassing offences under
Sections 294(b) and 323. After investigation, Annexure-A2
Final Report was filed, indicating that the offence under
Section 294(b) is not seen committed and that the offence
under Section 323 alone is committed. Since the offence,
which was found during the course of investigation is a
non-cognizable offence, a request was made in Annexure-A2 to
delete the case from the files. This was taken by learned
Magistrate as a refer report. By virtue of Annexure-A3, the
- 4 -
2025:KER:26957
so called refer report (Annexure-A2), was accepted by the
learned Magistrate for the reason that the petitioner was
absent and no protest complaint was filed. Seeking revision
of Annexure-A3 Order, Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2021
was filed, which, however, was also dismissed, vide
Annexure-A4 Order. In Annexure-A4, the thrust is seen given
to the fact that the petitioner/defacto complainant had not
filed any objection to the refer report, dehors affording
adequate opportunities.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the contesting 2nd respondent and also the learned Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent State, this Court
finds that Annexures-A3 and A4 Orders cannot be sustained.
Primarily, it has to be noticed that Annexure-A2 is not a
refer report, though the prayer therein is to discount the
case from the files. It is specifically stated in the
penultimate paragraph of Annexure-A2 that the offence under
Section 323 is seen committed, which, however, is
non-cognizable. That is not a ground, recognisable in law,
- 5 -
2025:KER:26957
to discount the case from the files. If the offence under
Section 294(b) is not committed, it may be open for the
Investigating Officer to delete the said offence. However,
that will not enable the Investigating Officer to file a
Refer Report, simultaneous with a finding that the offence
under Section 323 is committed. A Final Report ought to have
been filed with respect to offence under Section 323 and
proceedings in terms of law ought to have followed. The
prayer in Annexure-A2 Final Report seeking the case to be
discounted from the files was completely illegal. The
learned Magistrate failed to notice that aspect and
construed Annexure-A2 as a refer report and waited for the
objection, if any, on the part of the petitioner/defacto
complainant. Inasmuch as Annexure-A2 Final Report cannot be
sustained in law, its acceptance - albeit in the absence of
any objection on the part of the petitioner/defacto
complainant - is bad in law. The confirmation of Annexure-A3
by Annexure-A4 Order passed in Criminal Revision Petition
No.6/2021 is also equally bad, for the same reasons.
- 6 -
2025:KER:26957
4. In the circumstances, Annexures-A3 and A4 orders are
set aside. There will be a direction to the learned
Magistrate concerned to proceed with Annexure-A2 Final
Report, in accordance with law. While proceeding with the
matter, the learned Magistrate will also take into account
the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar [(1996) 11 SCC 557], as
well.
This Crl.M.C. is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 7 -
2025:KER:26957
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 15.08.2020 IN CRIME NO.
2136 OF 2020 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
12.08.2020 WITH TAP NO. 90218/20
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS
TREATED AS FIS IN CRIME NO. 2136 OF 2020
OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
29.09.2020 ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF
WITNESSES
ANNEXURE A2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2021
IN CRIME NO. 2136/2020 OF KOIPURAM
POLICE STATION ISSUED
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.10.2021 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II
IN CRIME NO. 2136/2020 OF KOIPURAM
POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.03.2024 IN
CRL.RP NO. 6 OF 2021 BEFORE THE SESSIONS
COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
