Does Bar U/S 198(1) CrPC Apply When Final Report Alleges Other Cognizable Offences Along With Marriage Related Offences: Kerala High Court Answers
The Kerala High Court has answered the issue whether the bar under Section 198(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would apply when a final report is filed alleging offences under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) along with cognizable offences which exclude Chapter XX of IPC.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Revision Petition filed by an accused, challenging the Common Order.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen elucidated, “Acting on the complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for investigation. Thereafter, final report was filed and the court took cognizance of the offences. Following the ratio in Ushaben (supra), the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the cognizance in this matter is illegal as the same violated the mandate of Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C is not sustainable.”
Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu appeared on behalf of the Revision Petitioner while Public Prosecutor (PP) T.S. Jibu appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Case Background
The prosecution case was generated based on a private complaint lodged by the de facto Complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 493, 494, 495 as well as 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), by the Petitioner. After investigation of the above complaint, as directed by the Magistrate, final report was filed alleging that the Petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 493, 494, 495 as well as 376 of the IPC.
Earlier, the Revision Petitioner approached the High Court to quash the proceedings and the said relief was disallowed and his plea was disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to file Discharge Petition before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Revision Petitioner filed two Petitions seeking discharge and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “In Crl.M.C.No.1221/2015, the petitioner seeks further investigation where the prosecution materials available were found to be sufficient to frame charge against the accused and go for trial. Thus, the said petition is only to be treated as an attempt to delay the trial further.”
The Court further noted that the Revision petitioner/petitioner earlier filed a plea to quash the entire proceedings, but the Court disposed of the same holding that quashment of the proceedings could not be considered, since the prosecution materials did not justify the same though the Petitioner was directed to file a Discharge Petition.
“In such a case, there is no reason to hold that the trial court went wrong in dismissing C.M.P.No.370/2015 filed by the petitioner seeking further investigation, relying on the prosecution records negating the said plea. Therefore, no interference in the order impugned in Crl.M.C.No.1221/2015 is necessary. Therefore, both the petitions deserve dismissal”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and directed the Additional Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and finish the same within 6 months.
Cause Title- Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State & Anr. (Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 295 OF 2015)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates George Mathews, M. Revikrishnan, T.T. Rakesh, T. Ramesh Babu, and Vipin Narayan.
Respondents: PP T.S. Jibu and Advocate Abhilash A.J.
