Skip to content


V.P. Manuel Puthuppalli Amsom Vs. Kollekkat Parangodan of Putupalli Amsom and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1972CriLJ1421
AppellantV.P. Manuel Puthuppalli Amsom
RespondentKollekkat Parangodan of Putupalli Amsom and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of section 195. this also adds strength to the contention that no application by any party is contemplated under clause (a) of section 195(1). and i feel that the contention of the counsel of the respondents is well founded and no petition as the one which has given rise to the revision petition is contemplated under section 195(1)(a) of the..........the munsif and then the petitioner moved the munsif to file a complaint under section 195 of the code of criminal procedure. the petition was dismissed; and the criminal revision petition is against the order.2. the counsel of the petitioner argues that the petition before the lower court was one under section 195(1)(a) of the code of criminal procedure and that the dismissal of that petition gave the petitioner a right to approach this court in revision under section 439 of the code. the counsel of the respondents, on the other hand, points out that section 195(1)(a) of the code does not contemplate any application by a party; according to the counsel, what the clause provides is that no court shall take cognisance of any offence mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Raghavan Ag, C.J.

1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in an original suit in which the first respondent was the defendant: the other two respondents were not parties to the suit. At the instance of the petitioner, an amin was deputed by the Munsif to harvest the crops on the property involved in the suit and the amin was resisted by all the respondents according to the petitioner but by respondents 2 and 3 according to the respondents. The amin reported the matter to the Munsif and then the petitioner moved the Munsif to file a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was dismissed; and the criminal revision petition is against the order.

2. The counsel of the petitioner argues that the petition before the lower court was one under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the dismissal of that petition gave the petitioner a right to approach this Court in revision under Section 439 of the Code. The counsel of the respondents, on the other hand, points out that Section 195(1)(a) of the Code does not contemplate any application by a party; according to the counsel, what the clause provides is that no court shall take cognisance of any offence mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of a public servant. In other words, the contention is that Section 195(1)(a) does not confer any right on a party like the petitioner to move the Munsif to file a complaint but only prohibits courts from taking cognisance of any offence mentioned therein except on a complaint by a public officer. It is also pointed out by the counsel of the respondents that the action of the Munsif under this clause is not a judicial act but only an administrative act and there is no question of filing an appeal or revision against such an order on the judicial side. Again, the counsel has drawn my attention to Section 476(1) of the Code which provides for a right of appeal in cases arising under Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. This also adds strength to the contention that no application by any party is contemplated under Clause (a) of Section 195(1). And I feel that the contention of the counsel of the respondents is well founded and no petition as the one which has given rise to the revision petition is contemplated under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code.

3. The counsel of the petitioner then contends that the criminal revision petition might be converted into a civil revision petition. Even this, I am afraid is not possible, because, as I have already indicated, the action of the Munsif under Section 195(1)(a) is an administrative act and it cannot be questioned on the judicial side. Therefore, this prayer cannot also be allowed.

4. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.


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