IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2020 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.196/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------- THOMAS GEORGE, JESSY BHAVAN, WARD NO 10, BENEDICT NAGAR, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: STATE & ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. REJI CHERIAN, TC 19/903,KESAVUDEVU ROAD, THAMALAM WARD, THIRUMALA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (TEACHER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL) 3. SAM JOHN, S/O JOHN SAM, KATTUVILA VEEDU, TC 37/1004, ELLUVILA ROAD, ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA, VILAGE. (TEACHER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL) 4. GANESH KUMAR, S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, VP NO 527, PALLIMUKKU, OFFICE WARD, VILAPPIL VILLAGE. (TEACHER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2020 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER On an F.I statement lodged by the petitioner, a crime was registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 354 r/w 149 I.P.C. After completing the investigation, final report was filed in that case alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 r/w 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken. The matter is pending before the learned Magistrate now as C.C.No.1024 of 2002. The petitioner submits that he was aggrieved by the said final report filed by the police. He therefore filed a private/protest complaint in 2004. The matter dragged on and ultimately on 06.03.06, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against the very same accused 1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 r/w 34 I.P.C. Accused had entered appearance in that case also. Both cases are pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner now – on 26.05.08, has rushed to this Court with a grievance that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is not justified in that no cognizance has been taken of Crl.M.C No.2020 of 2008 2 the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. My attention has been drawn to the averments in the private complaint in which the specific grievance is that no cognizance has been taken of the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. The petitioner, in these circumstances, contends that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is incorrect. Relying on the decision in Mathew Abraham v. Gopalakrishnan [2007 (4) KLT 1009], the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that not taking cognizance under Section 392 I.P.C amounts to dismissal of the complaint under Section 392 I.P.C and in so far as no reasons have been given for dismissing the said part of the complaint under Section 392 I.P.C, reasons which ought to have been given in terms of Section 203 Cr.P.C have not been given. Consequently it is contended that the impugned order dated 06.03.06 warrants interference. 3. On the question of law there can be very little doubt that the learned Magistrate, when he refuses to take cognizance of certain offences alleged in the complaint, has to pass a reasoned order explaining why cognizance was not taken of those offences. That position is well settled by the decision in Mathew Abraham v. Gopalakrishnan. Crl.M.C No.2020 of 2008 3 4. Any and every inadequacy in the proceedings conducted before the learned Magistrate will not certainly persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What was the petitioner doing all the while ? Why did the petitioner not prefer a revision or take any steps to challenge the order not taking cognizance under Section 392 I.P.C without giving reasons for the same ? The learned counsel for the petitioner offers only the explanation that his counsel verified the records only recently and realized that no cognizance has been taken of the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. 5. I am satisfied that there is no warrant for invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the facts and circumstances of this case. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused are waiting before the court below from 2002, cognizance in the final report having been taken then. The petitioner, who has slept over his rights, has omitted to challenge the order not taking cognizance under Section 392 I.P.C though that is a revisable order. The inadequacy in the order cannot now persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C No.2020 of 2008 4 6. Moreover, I am of opinion that no prejudice or failure of justice is likely to result as the learned Magistrate, if he is satisfied in the course of the trial that the offence under Section 392 I.P.C has also been made out, shall be at liberty to take appropriate action to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that any direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C need be issued now. 7. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-