Principle Of Locus Standi Alien To Criminal Law, Magistrate Can't Return Complaint Merely Because It Was Filed By Complainant's Wife: Kerala HC

Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.

"I have no doubt that the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and unsustainable. It is the settled proposition of law that criminal law can be set in motion by any person. Here, on the ground that after sustaining grievous hurt, her husband is unable to move out and hence, she has taken initiative to prefer the complaint. The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence."

The petition was moved by the wife of the injured in a road traffic accident. Her husband sustained grievous injuries in the accident and is under complete rest.

The petitioner alleged that despite an intimation given by the Hospital to the Sub Inspector, a crime was not registered. It was further pointed out that she lodged a complaint before the City Police Commissioner which was also not acted upon. Accordingly, she approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate with a complaint.

Since her husband had sustained grievous injuries, he is in an immobile stage. Therefore, the complaint was filed by his wife alleging offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.

However, the complaint was returned stating that 'the petition was filed by the wife of the complainant'.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the High Court. 

The Court found the act of the Magistrate returning the complaint 'astonishing' and declared that such act was illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed

More importantly, the Judge observed that a note could be seen positioned on the last page of the complaint put up by the ministerial staff and that was disturbing.

"More disturbing is the Court acting upon office notes put up by the ministerial staff. This Court takes strong exception to such a conduct. In judicial matters, the staff members cannot make any note or suggestion. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before returning the complaint. The reason stated is illegal."

Accordingly, the impugned order of the Magistrate was quashed and the Magistrate was directed to entertain the complaint and pass orders in accordance with law within seven days.

The petition was thereby allowed. 

The petitioner was represented by Advocates V.N. Sankarjee, V.N. Madhusudanan, R. Udaya Jyothi, M.M. Vinod, M. Suseela, Keerthi B. Chandran, P.K. Vijayan Pillai and C. Purushothaman Nair. Senior Public Prosecutor Hrithwik C.S appeared for the respondents.