IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4975 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.88/2006 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 7 ----------------------------- 1. PRASANTH @ SANJU, S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, SARIKA BHAVANAM, ELAMKULAM, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 2. PRAVEEN @ UNNI, S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, SARIKA BHAVANAM, ELAMKULAM, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 3. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, SARIKA BHAVANAM, ELAMKULAM, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 4. ANISH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SASI MANDIRAM, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 5. ANISH, S/O.RAVI, VINOD BHAVAN, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 6. VINOJ, S/O.RAJAN, VINOJ BHAVANAM, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 7. SUMESH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SASI MANDIRAM, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYAN, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, NENMELIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4975 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.88 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravoor for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 324 and 379 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). That case was registered allegedly on the information (Annexure-I, statement) given by respondent No.2. The Police after investigation have submitted Annexure-III, final report alleging that petitioners committed offences as alleged. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed Annexure-IV, private complaint against petitioners and one J.Babu, a Head Constable of Parippally Police Station alleging that he had not given a statement like Annexure-I, his statement was forged or substituted by another one and the said J.Babu committed offences punishable under Sections 201 to 204 of the Code while petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 7) committed offences under Sections 395, 379, 323, 324 and 352 read with Section 34 of the Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on that complaint, Police submitted a final report against the said J.Babu who was tried and convicted later (in C.C.No.215 of 2005). The defacto complainant then filed Annexure-V, protest complaint against petitioners. Learned counsel was not able to say whether cognizance has been taken against petitioners on the said complaint. Now the prayer is to quash Annexures-I, II and III, FIS, FIR and final report in C.C.No.88 of 2006. It is Crl.MC No.4975/2010 2 contended that trial of petitioners in C.C.No.88 of 2006 violates the rule against double geopardy and since Annexure-I, FIS was found to be forged in C.C.N.215 of 2005 where accused No.8 (J.Babu, Head Constable of Parippally Police Station) was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 201 to 204 of the Code, Annexures-I to III cannot stand and the prosecution may not be allowed to proceed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor. 3. Merely because in C.C.No.215 of 2005 respondent No.2 claimed or it is found that he had not given any such statement as Annexure-I in C.C.No.88 of 2006 (Crime No.292 of 2000 of Parippally Police Station), petitioners cannot legitimately request this Court to quash proceedings against them pursuant to Annexure-III, final report. What would be the fate of that case in the light of the stand of respondent No.2 or any finding in C.C.No.215 of 2005 is not required to be gone into in this proceeding. Nor am I impressed by the contention that if trial in C.C.No.88 of 2006 proceeds it would violate the rule against double geopardy, for, that principle applies only when petitioners already tried, the case is disposed of and there is a subsequent trial for the same offence as stated in Section 300(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C”). No such contingency arose in this case. There is Crl.MC No.4975/2010 3 nothing wrong in there being a private complaint case and police case in respect of the same incident and the procedure to be followed in such situations is stated in Mani v. Swaminathan (1986 KLT 170) and Peter v. Kurian (1994 (1) KLT 17). I am not persuaded to think that because of the proceedings in Annexure-III, final report, petitioners cannot be tried in the complaint case. 4. If Annexure-V, complaint is pending and cognizance is taken, it is open to the petitioners to request the court concerned to follow the procedure laid down in the decisions referred above. With the above observation, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks