IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1939 of 2011() ---------------------- CRIME NO. 411/2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR ................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- K.P. SAJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. DINACHANDRAN, KANDOTH, VELLUR, VELLUR AMSOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------- STATE – REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1939 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE AI : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 411/2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AI(a) : COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 411 OF 2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII : COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 411 OF 2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AIII : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2010 IN CC 197/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1939 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.411 of Payyannur Police Station and C.C. No.197 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 and 188 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 13.11.2005 at about 10.15 p.m petitioner and 14 others carrying hoe, spade, pick-axe, etc., trespassed into the property of P.W.1 violating the order of injunction passed by learned Sub Judge, Payyannur on I.A. No.978 of 2005 in O.S. No.108 of 2005 and committed offences as alleged. Petitioner states that other accused faced trial and were acquitted as per Annexure-III, judgment. Learned counsel contended that though C.W.1-de facto complainant was examined as P.W.1, he could not identify the (alleged) trespassers. In the circumstances it is prayed that prosecution against petitioner may be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that C.Ws2 and 3 who are occurrence witnesses were not examined in the case against other accused. 2. I have gone through Annexure-III, judgment. Having CRL.M.C. No.1939 of 2011 -: 2 :- regard to the nature of allegations made in the final report and that Cws.2 and 3 were not examined in the case against other accused, I am not inclined to think that this Court should interfere under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner has to raise appropriate plea/defence in the trial court. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise appropriate plea/defence in the trial court. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv