IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3446 of 2005() ------------------------- CC.22/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------- DEVADAS, PATTASSERIL VEEDU, KUZHITHURA, ALAPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.S.SIBHA RESPONDENTS: STATE &COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVI MOHANA NATH, NATH MANDIRAM, THURETHEL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUZHITHURA, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LAKSHMI RANI FOR R1 SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO13717/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.346/05 //DISMISSED// 21.1.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.3446 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure-II and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.22/04 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally. 2. The petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C.No.22/04 pending before the Court of J.F.C.M., Karunagappally and the offences alleged against the petitioner and three other accused are under sections 323, 341, 427, 452, 504, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of IPC. The case was registered against accused 1 to 4 on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant produced as Annexure-I regarding the incident took place on 26.10.2001 at about 6.30 PM near Sreekrishna Swamy Temple. It was also alleged in Annexure I that at that time the complainant was riding a motor cycle KL-04-6060 and the above offences were committed by accused 1 to 4. Crl.M.C.No.3446/05 -2- 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Annexure-II FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and other accused on the basis of the complaint Annexure I filed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance of which C.C.No.22/04 was registered against them and it was to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and his family. Another case was filed against the second respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner in respect of an earlier incident occurred on 26.10.2001 and Crime No.613/01 was registered. Copy of that FIR has not been produced. Annexure-III is the copy of the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent recorded by the learned Magistrate in the complaint filed by him against the petitioner and others. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner a civil suit was also pending between the petitioner and the second respondent relating to the usage of a pathway. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that sufficient allegations are there in Crl.M.C.No.3446/05 -3- Annexure I and the allegations stated in the present petition are without any merits. 5. The parties are neighbours and the place of occurrence of the alleged incident was already stated in Annexure I as it occurred near Sreekrishna Temple. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant has satisfied that prima facie case is there against accused 1 to 4 of whom the first accused is the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the case was proceeded with and is pending before the Court of J.F.C.M., Karunagappally. 6. Whether there are sufficient grounds against the petitioner and other accused to prove the offence alleged against them will depend upon the nature of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The disputed facts of the case and the evidence of the alleged offence to be adduced on the side of the prosecution, etc. cannot be looked into by this Court to decide whether there is any chance either to convict them or to acquit them. It is the duty of the trial court. On going through the allegations in the petition and the circumstances of this case, I find no merits in this petition and there are no sufficient grounds Crl.M.C.No.3446/05 -4- to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.22/04 pending before the Court of J.F.C.M., Karunagappally. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn