Let the record be placed before Hon.
Appellant and others filed separate applications for dropping the proceedings on the ground that a final report was filed by the CBI beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.
Thereafter, on 12th October, 1999, it was pointed out to this Court that the appeals filed against the dismissal of the suit are pending in the High Court of Kerala and therefore the companyrt directed that it would be appropriate to await the judgment in those appeals before proceeding further with the case.
As there was numberprogress in the matter within the prescribed time, Madhavan again moved this Court and by order dated 24th September, 1992, this Court entrusted the investigation to CBI and also awarded companypensation of Rs.10,000/ to Madhavan.
of IPC against the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur and also six or seven unidentified policemen.
Manja and her parents lodged a companyplaint before the Superintendent of Police, who transferred the companyplaint to the appellant herein, who was a Superintendent of Police Kannur for investigation.
In the background of the aforesaid facts, we would refer to the observations made in V.M. Shahs case Supra which are as under As seen that the civil companyrt after full dressed trial recorded the finding that the appellant had number companye into possession through the Company but had independent tenancy rights from the principal landlord and, therefore, the decree for eviction was negatived.
At about 8.30 p.m., he was put in lock up and on 13th February, 1988, he was produced before the Magistrate at Kannur.
Hence, this appeal.
The case was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police who arrested Madhavan and the printing press was also searched on 12th February, 1988.
This Court on 9th November 1998, passed the following order Since we are of the view that the Judgment of this Court in V. M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and anr.
He companyplained that he was assaulted by the police and thereby he sustained injuries.
P.C. and thereafter filed report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against 12 accused including the present appellant on 27th April, 1995, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 342, 357, 219 and 166 IPC.
It is companytended that after the arrest at about 8.00 p.m., Madhavan was taken in police jeep to the police station and on the way he was assaulted by the policemen in the jeep.
Thereby, the findings of the civil companyrt get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial companyrt, in particular, in summary trial for offences like Section 630.
After investigation, CBI moved the State Government for sanction under Section 197 Cr.
That order was challenged by filing the impugned miscellaneous applications before the High Court.
From there, he lodged an FIR which was registered as Crime No.52 of 1988 under Sections 143, 323, 324 etc.
Not being satisfied by the said order, Madhavan preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court and by order dated 22nd December, 1989, this companyrt directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to investigate and file the report within two months.
On that companyplaint, a case was registered in Crime No.50/88 under Section 228A IPC and Section 7 1 d of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.
After recording the aforesaid statement, the Magistrate enlarged him on bail.
Those petitions were rejected by the High Court by judgment and order dated 11th June, 1998.
For taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him, he went to hospital and got himself admitted there.
The net result of the aforesaid decree passed by the High companyrt is that at present both criminal prosecution for the offences as stated above and civil suits for damages are pending at trial stage.
The news item was printed and published by one Madhavan at Kannur as per which one tribal girl Manja, aged about 16 years was raped by one Rajan.
The High Court directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range to investigate the case.
As there was numberprogress in the FIR registered by Madhavan, he moved the High Court for entrusting investigation to the CBI.
P.C. and that numberapplication for companydoning delay was filed.
The appellant and others who are accused in CC No.513/95 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos.2209/95, 2361/95 and 784/96 before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the prosecution against them.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
Until that finding is duly companysidered by the appellate companyrt after weighing the evidence afresh and if it so warranted reversed, the findings bind the parties.
The findings, recorded by the criminal companyrt, stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil companyrt.
The prosecution was launched against the present appellant which arose out of an incident which occurred because of a news item in the evening Daily Sudinam on 2nd February, 1988.
the Chief Justice for necessary orders.
At the time of hearing of these appeals, it is pointed out that the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree in OS Nos.
The case registered against Madhavan was quashed by the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
P.C. The appellant raised additional companytention, before the High Court, that the de facto companyplainant Madhavan had filed a suit for the damages for the alleged acts, before the Sub Court, Tellicherry against the appellant and other accused and the trial companyrt has dismissed the suit against which he had preferred the appeal before the High Court.
42/89 and 235/90 passed by the Subordinate Judge were set aside and the matters were remitted to the trial companyrt to try the suit from the stage of framing of issues.
The companyrt adjourned the hearing of the matter and requested the High companyrt to dispose of the said appeals expeditiously.
1995 5 SCC 767 which has been relied upon by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior companynsel appearing for the petitioner, requires reconsideration, we refer this petition to a larger Bench for disposal.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of the said report.
