IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 378 of 2006(B) ------------------------- CC.265/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------- K.CHANDRAHAS, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, C.S.LAND, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, NJEKKADU, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3280/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.378/06 //DISMISSED// 18.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO.378 of 2006 ======================= Dated this the 18th day of February 2009 ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the second accused in C.C.No.265/1996 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash Annexure-I charge sheet as against the petitioner. 2. Statement of facts as alleged in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.265/1996 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. Altogether seven accused are there and the petitioner was implicated as the second accused in the party array as the Health Inspector who was in charge from 1991 onwards. The offence alleged against the accused in Crime No.93/CR/91 as revealed from Annexure-I, copy of the final CRMC.378/2006 -2- report are under Sections 120(B), 465, 466,468,471,201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above crime was registered by the Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, one Vijayakumar to the Director of Vigilance which was forwarded to the Crime Branch for investigation. The complaint against the accused was that the de facto complainant was conducting a tailoring shop, which was owned by the 5th accused, from 1984 onwards and with the intention to evict him from that shop, the accused 4 to 6 conspired together and influenced accused 1 to 3, who are officers of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and forged document and obtained licence in favour of the 4th accused. The allegation against the petitioner,2nd accused was that he recommended the renewal of licence issued to the 4th accused without conducting proper enquiry while he was working as the Health Inspector in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Now the charge is framed against the petitioner also and the case is pending as C.C.No.265/1996 before the trial court. It is stated in this petition that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner and the charge alleged against him as revealed CRMC.378/2006 -3- from Annexure-I will not lie. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is compelled to face the trial in pursuance of the charge sheet,Annexure-I and the offence alleged against the petitioner is that no enquiry was made by the petitioner while renewing the original licence in favour of the 4th accused in respect of the tailoring shop conducted by the de facto complainant while he was working as the Health Inspector in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on additional documents produced as Annexures-2 and 3. Annexure-2 is the copy of the original complaint preferred by the de facto complainant. The name of the petitioner was not there in the original complaint. Annexure- 3 is the copy of mahazar prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Thiruvananthapuram in the above crime 93/CR/91 wherein the entries of the attendance register of CRMC.378/2006 -4- the year 1988 and 1991 are recorded. In the entries in the attendance register of the year 1988, the name of the Health Inspector of that period is shown as V.Lalithamma who is accused No.7 in the crime and the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein which would reveal that he was not working as an employee during that period. With regard to the entries of the attendance register of the year 1991 mentioned in Annexure-3, it was noted that the Health Inspector at that time was K.Chandrahas, the petitioner herein. The offence alleged against the accused in the above crime including the petitioner was of the year 1987 and the alleged conspiracy was of the year 1987 by accused 4 to 6. The alleged forgery of the document was also mentioned in the year 1987 against the officers of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation mentioned as accused 1 to 3 and 7. The specific allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner, the second accused, was that he has renewed the original licence issued to the 4th accused in the year 1987 by the 7th accused, without conducting proper enquiry and committed the above mentioned offence. 5. On a perusal of Annexures 1 to 3 and after hearing the CRMC.378/2006 -5- learned Public Prosecutor also, I find that there are no ingredients to attract any of the offence mentioned in the charge so as to proceed against the petitioner who was the Health Inspector in the year 1991 only and he had no role either to hold the original licence or to make any entry in the registers kept in the office of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation of the year 1988 so as to proceed against the petitioner. In the absence of any specific case regarding the forgery whatsoever against the petitioner, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner herein will be a clear abuse of process of court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of justice, I find that the prayer in this petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, Annexure-I charge sheet as against the petitioner herein who is the second accused in C.C.No.265/1996 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed. In the result, the Crl.M.C.is allowed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.