P K HAMEED Vs. CHANDA PILLAI KURIEN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. K. HAMEED
CHANDA PILLAI KURIEN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an application under S. 561a Crl. P. C. praying that C. C. No. 208 of 1973 on the file of the Additional First Class magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta be quashed or in the alternative to transfer the case to the First Class Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum .
(2.) THE Petitioner is a textile merchant in Pachalloor, Trivandrum . A criminal complaint was filed against him by the first respondent as C. C. No. 248 of 1971, before the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum on 8111971. THE complaint alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under S. 420 I. P. C. After filing the complaint, the first respondent did not appear in Court and therefore the case ended in the discharge of the accused on 27121971. THE first respondent thereafter filed another complaint as C. C. No. 409 of 1972 before the additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, adding one more accused therein and with the necessary allegations to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Court. This second complaint did not make mention of the earlier complaint, C. C. No. 248 of 1971. Here also, the complainant did not present himself before Court, and therefore, the Court discharged the accused, under S. 259 Cr. P. C. on 15 61973. THEreafter, it was, that the third complaint was filed against the petitioner by the first respondent as C. C. No. 208 of 1973. THE present complaint was filed on 22 61973. This petition is to quash all proceedings in C. C. No. 208 of 1973 before the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta.
It is seen that the first respondent did not on two earlier occasions, when his complaints were thrown out by discharge of the accused by the trial court, take any steps to get the order of discharge vacated. There is no legal bar, of course, for a fresh complaint being filed after an earlier complaint ends in discharge. But in this case the first respondent has displayed an utter lack of responsibility and has used the medium of Court to wreak vengeance. The complaint in question appears to me to be clearly an abuse of the process of Court. The averments in the complaint can, if at all give rise to only a civil liability. The petitioner is residing in Trivandrum and carrying on his business there. Although jurisdiction under s. 561a can be invoked only very sparingly, I am satisfied that the case on hand is the one in which this extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised, at least to correct persons like the first respondent, who misuses the forum of Court for ventilating personal vendetta. In the result, the Crl. M. P. is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 208 of 1973 on the file of the Additional First Class magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, ate quashed. . .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.