IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2846 of 2008(C) -------------------------- CC.21/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.SAJEEVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, R/AT.VRINDAVAN, IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.PUSHPALATHA, W/O.M.K.RAJENDRAN, SANGEETHA, PALLOOR PO. 3. M.K.RAJENDRAN, H/O.PUSHPALATHA, SANGEETH, PALLOOR PO., 4. M.E.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, CLERK, ROYAL AGENCY, THALASSERY (NOW AT SIDHARTH) INTERNATIONAL), THALASSERY). R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.P.M.HABEEB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.2846 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to have Annexure F and I orders passed by the court below quashed and also for a direction to the court below to take cognizance of Annexure B protest complaint as prayed for in Annexure H petition. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint which was referred for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police after investigation filed a report which was taken cognizance as C.C No.226/2004 (shown as 21/2004). Dissatisfied with the investigation, it is seen that the petitioner preferred Annexure B complaint styled as protest complaint before the court below. That too seems to have been referred that for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police after investigation filed a refer report. Petitioner herein filed a protest complaint that was disposed of by order shown as Annexure I. Petitioner attacks Annexure I order on the ground that the court below did not consider it properly and reasonably the allegations made by him. Crl.M.C.No.2846/08 Page numbers 3. Petitioner has also pointed out that the court below while considering his earlier protest complaint has referred the case for investigation under Section156(3) Cr.P.C after having taken cognizance which is not permissible under law. On these grounds he prays that Annexure I may be set aside. 4. The complaint was initially referred for investigation and the police filed a report before the court below which has already taken cognizance as C.C No.226/2004. Going through the records, it is seen that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the investigation of that case and he therefore filed a petition styled as protest complaint. He was dissatisfied with the investigation already made. Whatever that be, protest complaint was entertained and according to the petitioner cognizance was taken and then it was referred to the police for investigation. The respondent points out that no statement of the complainant was taken and before that the forwarding of the case had been made. Whatever that be, after investigation, the police filed a refer report. On getting notice of the report, the petitioner filed a protest complaint which is Annexure H. The court below has passed the impugned order that is Annexure I. Crl.M.C.No.2846/08 Page numbers 5. It must be said that the order is too cryptic. It also mentioned that the case was referred as U.D. It is not factually correct. There is no consideration for the protest complaint filed by the petitioner to the refer report of the police. No reasons are given as to why the protest complaint could not be entertained. The court below should have applied its mind and that should be disclosed in the order. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the matter has been sent back to the trial court for consideration. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure I set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to consider the protest complaint filed by the petitioner on the second occassion in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. This will not preclude the respondent from proceeding with C.C No.226/2004 in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv