IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2242 of 2009() ( Crime No.132/09 of Poovar Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District ) ------------------------- PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------- 1. KAMBAM THANKARAJAN, VALLAMINA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SELVI, W/O.THANKARAJAN, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. MR. SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2242 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in crime No.132/2009 of Poovar Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 4(b) of Explosives Substance Act and 9(B) (1)(a) (b) of Explosives Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I FIR and the investigation contending that first petitioner has a valid license and he had applied for renewal of the license and as application was not rejected, there is a valid license and therefore, he has not committed any offence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that on a complaint filed by the petitioners, Director General of Police had directed an investigation on the allegation that the explosives were seized from the place where first CRMC 2242/09 2 petitioner is having a valid license and it is already found that petitioner is having a license and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. If what is represented by the learned counsel is true, I find it not necessary to quash the complaint because based on that investigation only a refer report could be filed. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.