Sunday, June 2, 2013

police can transfer 498a case to another (correct) PS/ jurisdiction without reverting back to magistrate who accepted the original case. HC will NOT quash the case !!



Notes
***************
  • Wife files complaints before the magistrate
  • Magistrate accepts complaint, sends it for inquiry to Mannarkkad Police Station, Kerala State
  • Since offense imputed occurred within jurisdiction of Kongad Police Station, (with the same Kerala State) F.I.R transmitted to that station & crime re registered
  • Husband tries to quash saying the PS should have taken the magistrate's permission before transferring case
  • Husband's quash petition is dismissed !!


Thoughts
  • So police can freely transfer cases wherever they want
  • Once married, the MAN has to run around multiple police stations
  • the MOOT question as to whether the allegations are true or false are NOT discussed ANYWHERE !!!!!





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934

Crl.MC.No. 433 of 2012 ()
*************************
CC.483/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,PALAKKAD
****************
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 & 3:
**************************************************

1. MUHAMMED ALI,
S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 61 YEARS, VYSHAR HOUSE,
NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2. ASSIYA,
W/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 55 YEARS, VYSHAR HOUSE,
NAMBULLIPURA, P.O.MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K. MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
SRI.M. RAJENDRAN NAIR


RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
********************************************************************

1. FASILA,
D/O.BASHEER, AGED 29 YEARS, THEKKETH HOUSE,
THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. RANJITH


THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2012 ALONG WITH CRMC. 893/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
******************************

ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.148/2011 DATED30/04/2011 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION.

ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY KONGAD POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS II, PALAKKAD DATED 29/05/2011.



RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:         N I L
******************************




 /TRUE COPY/




 P.A.TO JUDGE


Kss



S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
***********************************************
Crl.M.C Nos.433 & 893 OF 2012
*******************************************************
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2012


ORDER



Petitioners in the above two petitions are the accused in a pending case on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Palakkad.    They are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Common first respondent in the two petitions, who is the wife of the first accused in the case, filed a complaint before the Magistrate imputing matrimonial cruelty and harassment by her husband and his close relatives, the other accused, demanding dowry. That complaint was referred to police for investigation and report.

A crime on such reference was registered at Mannarkkad Police Station. Later, since the offence imputed occurred within the jurisdiction of another police station, the F.I.R was transmitted to that station, Kongad Police Station, where the crime was re-registered. After completion of investigation, final report was laid indicting the accused, all three of them, for the offence stated supra.

Challenge canvassed in these petitions is that where the Station House Officer to whom complaint was sent by the Magistrate for registration of the crime found that the offence imputed does not fall within his jurisdiction, then, he should have sought prior permission of the Magistrate to transfer the F.I.R registered in the crime to another station.

I do not find any merit in the challenge so canvassed. Without taking cognizance of the offence imputed in the complaint, the Magistrate has forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Station House Officer within his jurisdiction. Once a crime is registered thereof, Station House Officer or police officer concerned has to proceed in accordance with law, and where he found that the offence imputed fall within the jurisdiction of another station, he had to transmit the F.I.R to that station for investigation.  That alone was done in the present case. 

Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that the allegations raised in the complaint for registration of the crime are baseless and in fact they do not make out the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code with which the accused now stands indicted after filing of the final report.

Whatever defences available to the petitioners, if so available, can be canvassed by them before the Magistrate as provided by law.

Reserving their right to do so, these petitions are dismissed.


vdv              

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE