Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 1 - 2025:KER:26957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 5701 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2136/2020 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 IN CRRP NO.6 OF 2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/REVISION PETIITONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: AJIMOL MONCY AGED 45 YEARS W/O. MONCY GEORGE, PEEDIKAYIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, VALAKUZHI P.O, EZHUMATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689544. BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX AMAL AMIR ALI MANU SANKAR P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 2 - 2025:KER:26957 2 VALSAMMA JACOB MANNETHU MALAYIL VEEDU, NJALIBHAGAM, KAVIYOOR P.O KAVIYOOR VILLAGE THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689582. BY ADVS. T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) ANNIE M.ABRAHAM(K/000869/1995) KURIEN BIJU(K/002712/2023) SEENA.C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 3 - 2025:KER:26957 O R D E R This Crl.M.C is preferred by the defacto complainant in Crime No.2136/2020 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta challenging Annexure-A3 Order, as also, Annexure-A4 Order, which dismissed a revision carried from Annexure-A3 Order. 2. The bare minimum facts are as follows: On the basis of an F.I.S preferred by the petitioner, Annexure-A1 F.I.R was registered with Crime No.2136/2020 by the Koipuram Police Station, canvassing offences under Sections 294(b) and 323. After investigation, Annexure-A2 Final Report was filed, indicating that the offence under Section 294(b) is not seen committed and that the offence under Section 323 alone is committed. Since the offence, which was found during the course of investigation is a non-cognizable offence, a request was made in Annexure-A2 to delete the case from the files. This was taken by learned Magistrate as a refer report. By virtue of Annexure-A3, the Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 4 - 2025:KER:26957 so called refer report (Annexure-A2), was accepted by the learned Magistrate for the reason that the petitioner was absent and no protest complaint was filed. Seeking revision of Annexure-A3 Order, Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2021 was filed, which, however, was also dismissed, vide Annexure-A4 Order. In Annexure-A4, the thrust is seen given to the fact that the petitioner/defacto complainant had not filed any objection to the refer report, dehors affording adequate opportunities. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contesting 2nd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent State, this Court finds that Annexures-A3 and A4 Orders cannot be sustained. Primarily, it has to be noticed that Annexure-A2 is not a refer report, though the prayer therein is to discount the case from the files. It is specifically stated in the penultimate paragraph of Annexure-A2 that the offence under Section 323 is seen committed, which, however, is non-cognizable. That is not a ground, recognisable in law, Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 5 - 2025:KER:26957 to discount the case from the files. If the offence under Section 294(b) is not committed, it may be open for the Investigating Officer to delete the said offence. However, that will not enable the Investigating Officer to file a Refer Report, simultaneous with a finding that the offence under Section 323 is committed. A Final Report ought to have been filed with respect to offence under Section 323 and proceedings in terms of law ought to have followed. The prayer in Annexure-A2 Final Report seeking the case to be discounted from the files was completely illegal. The learned Magistrate failed to notice that aspect and construed Annexure-A2 as a refer report and waited for the objection, if any, on the part of the petitioner/defacto complainant. Inasmuch as Annexure-A2 Final Report cannot be sustained in law, its acceptance - albeit in the absence of any objection on the part of the petitioner/defacto complainant - is bad in law. The confirmation of Annexure-A3 by Annexure-A4 Order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2021 is also equally bad, for the same reasons. Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 6 - 2025:KER:26957 4. In the circumstances, Annexures-A3 and A4 orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the learned Magistrate concerned to proceed with Annexure-A2 Final Report, in accordance with law. While proceeding with the matter, the learned Magistrate will also take into account the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar [(1996) 11 SCC 557], as well. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww Crl.M.C.No.5701 of 2024 - 7 - 2025:KER:26957 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5701/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 15.08.2020 IN CRIME NO. 2136 OF 2020 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.08.2020 WITH TAP NO. 90218/20 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS TREATED AS FIS IN CRIME NO. 2136 OF 2020 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 29.09.2020 ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF WITNESSES ANNEXURE A2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2021 IN CRIME NO. 2136/2020 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION ISSUED ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.10.2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II IN CRIME NO. 2136/2020 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.03.2024 IN CRL.RP NO. 6 OF 2021 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA