CrPC | Revisional Court Can't Act As Appellate Court, Shouldn't Interfere Unless Decision Grossly Flawed: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the power of a revisional court under Section 397 to 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC") cannot be equated to that of an Appellate Court.

The Bench comprising Justice K Babu thereby upheld the order of dismissal passed by a Magistrate.

“Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”

The complainant alleges that the respondents have forged her signatures on the claim petition and vakalath to obtain illegal possession of her property. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC because no prima facie case was made out to proceed against the respondents. The complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court.

Section 203 enables a Magistrate to dismiss the complaint if there are no sufficient grounds to proceed after the inquiry or investigation.

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate T N Manoj argued that the Court only needs to find out if a prima facie case was made out or not. He further submitted that the Court was not expected to weigh the evidence to find out if there was sufficient ground for conviction or not.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, Advocate Biju Balakrishnan and Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha submitted that lack of credibility of the complainant, who was the sole witness persuaded the Magistrate to conclude that no prima facie case was made out against the respondents.

The Court examined the power of a Magistrate to dismiss a compliant u/s 203 of CrPC when there were no sufficient grounds to proceed on the basis of the complaint and held that the term ‘sufficient ground’ would mean satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out against the accused and not that there was sufficient ground for conviction. It held thus:

“The words “sufficient ground” used in Section 203 Cr.P.C. means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not that there is sufficient ground for conviction. The sufficient ground contemplated in the section relates to the facts which the complainant placed before the Court and such facts showing a prima facie case against the accused. The Magistrate can take into consider inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations.”

The Court stated the grounds based on which a Magistrate can dismiss the complaint u/s 203 as follows:

1. If the Court finds that an offence has been committed based on the statement of the complainant
2. If the Court distrusts the statement of the complainant
3. If the Court distrusts the statement of the complainant, but the Magistrate was not entirely sure of its distrust to act upon it and therefore the Court conducts or orders for further inquiry

The Court stated revisional power cannot be equated to that of an appeal. It stated that the Revisional Court can set aside the order of a Magistrate only when the order passed by the Magistrate was perverse or the view taken by the court was wholly unreasonable there was non-consideration of any relevant material or there was a palpable misreading of records.

The Court found that the complaint had inherent improbabilities and that she preferred the complaint after a long delay of six years. The Court found that even after five postings, the complainant had failed to produce any reliable material to show that her signatures were forged.

Based on the afore findings, the Court upheld the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint.

Case title: Lalitha V Krishna Pillai

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 435

Click Here To Read/Download Order