Skip to content


T. Shankaran and ors. Vs. Iype Cherian - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ1377; (1973)2MysLJ426
AppellantT. Shankaran and ors.
Respondentiype Cherian
Excerpt:
.....2003-04 the names of petitioners are entered in column no.12(2) and the mode of cultivation is shown as 3 which indicates that the petitioners are cultivating the land in question as tenants. impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside. - this clearly shows that the learned magistrate without applying his mind to the allegations contained in the complaint proceeded to register a case mechanically. after receipt of the 'b' report which clearly shows that the allegations made by the complainant were false, the learned magistrate has again without applying his mind mechanically has registered the case......alleging that they have committed offences punishable under sections 420 and 409, i.p.c. the learned magistrate examined the complainant on 12-6-1972 and he proceeded to register the case against the petitioners under section 420. i.p.c. having done so, the learned magistrate referred the complaint under section 202, cr.p.c. to the inspector of police, tumkur town for investigation.2. the inspector of police, tumkur town, after investigation submitted a 'b' report stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. thereafter on 25-8-1972 the learned magistrate directed issue of process against the petitioners. it is against these orders that the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.3. the complaint recites that the first accused being manager.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Honniah, J.

1. The facts that have given rise to these petitions are these:

The respondents in these two petitions filed a complaint against the petitioners who are officials of Sudarshan Trading Co., Madras alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on 12-6-1972 and he proceeded to register the case against the petitioners under Section 420. I.P.C. Having done so, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 202, Cr.P.C. to the Inspector of Police, Tumkur Town for investigation.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tumkur Town, after investigation submitted a 'B' report stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. Thereafter on 25-8-1972 the learned Magistrate directed issue of process against the petitioners. It is against these orders that the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

3. The complaint recites that the first accused being Manager of the Branch Office of Sudarshan Trading Co. at Tumkur was responsible for the disbursement of the money for the complainant or any member of the company. Accused 2 to 4 are supervising authorities of accused 1 and they have directed the first accused to commit illegal acts in violation of law. The first accused in collusion with accused 2 to 4 has created valuable security by incorporating the names of persons who are not members violating the conditions laid down for the business. The only further statement in the complaint is that the first accused in contravention of the rules has created the documents in order to take benefit of the monthly bid amount in favour of the company by introducing fictitious persons.

4. On this extraordinarily vague complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded an equally vague statement of the complainant and on the basis of which he registered a case against the accused under Section 420, I.P.C. Having done so, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint, as stated earlier, for investigation under Section 202, Cr.P.C. to the police to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. This clearly shows that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind to the allegations contained in the complaint proceeded to register a case mechanically. After receipt of the 'B' report which clearly shows that the allegations made by the complainant were false, the learned Magistrate has again without applying his mind mechanically has registered the case.

5. It is necessary for complainants seeking to invoke the process of the Court against persons to make their allegations in such precise manner that the accused person can understand what case he has to meet and that those allegations could be made the subject-matter of a charge. The criminal proceedings started on a complaint which does not contain any definite accusation amount to abuse of process of the Criminal Courts. I therefore set aside the orders in question and quash the proceedings against the accused.

6. In the result these two petitions are allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //