Sub Inspector Of Police Who Registered Crime Cannot Compensate Accused U/s. 250 CrPC On His Acquittal: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a suo moto crime, cannot be imposed with compensation after acquittal of the accused in the said crime under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC.).
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by the Sub Inspector of Police against the Sessions Judge who dismissed his appeal confirming the order directing to pay compensation to the accused.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, “When the literal interpretation of the said provision does not lead to any absurdity, it is not proper on the part of the court to substitute the said provision with additional words. Viewed in the light of above principles of interpretation as well as the judgment in Krishnan Moopan’s case (supra), I am of the view that the imposition of compensation on the revision petitioner in the instant case irregular and liable to be set aside.”
The Bench said that the compensation contemplated under Section 250 Cr.P.C. is a special provision enacted to meet the specific contingencies mentioned therein.
Advocate R. Bindu Sasthamangalam appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner while Public Prosecutor Prabhakaran C.N. appeared on behalf of the State.
Factual Background -
The proceedings were initiated against an Advocate, under Section 51(A) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 alleging that he was found behaving in a disorderly manner by uttering obscene words causing nuisance to the pedestrians and the neighbours in the year 1996 on a public road in front of a Police Station. The accused was removed from the place and he was subjected to medical examination and after trial, the Magistrate found that the initial medical certificate did not mention about any smell of alcohol and came to the conclusion that accused had not consumed alcohol. But the said certificate was destroyed and a false certificate was concocted and produced before the court and it was noticed that a personal rivalry existed between the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the crime and the accused.
Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the revision petitioner/complainant under Section 250 Cr.P.C., asking to explain why compensation of Rs. 5,000/- should not be ordered to be paid to the accused. A reply was filed by the revision petitioner stating that the steps initiated by him were sustainable under law and that the proceedings initiated against him under Section 250 Cr.P.C. ought to be dropped. The Magistrate directed Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioner as compensation to the accused, aggrieved by which the revision petitioner an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court which also dismissed the. Hence, the revision petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts of the case observed, “In the instant case, the crime has been registered suo motu and not upon a complaint as contemplated under Section 250 Cr.P.C. … It is apposite to point out at this juncture that a person alleging malicious prosecution can proceed against the person who initiated such a false prosecution, under the general civil law.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the compensation order of the Additional Sessions Court.
Cause Title- S. Sukumaran Chettiyar v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:50556)
