IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3714 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.94/09 OF KALLOORKKAD POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA. ..... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- K.ULLAS, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, USHUS- SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, PERUMBALLUR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS.MR.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI MR.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLOORKAD POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA. (CRIME NO.94/09). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON 15/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure A complaint quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.94 of 2009 of Kalloorkkad Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 1(b) (a) of the Arms Act, 1969 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the FIR is produced as Annexue A. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 23.3.2009 while he was going in a Tata Indica car, he was detained by some persons. Police arrived at the spot, and found a gun in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner informed the police officers that he had licence for the gun, which he had not taken with him at that time. Since the licence was not immediately Crl.M.C.3714/2009. 2 available, crime was registered. He was also included in the array of accused. Petitioner was arrested and he was released on bail. Later, the licence number was given and on verification it was found that the petitioner at the time did have a licence. 4. It is therefore pointed out that no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner because no offence lies against him. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the Case Diary for perusal. 6. The CD discloses that the petitioner was found in the company of four others in the dead of night under suspicious circumstances. He was also unable to produce the licence when demanded. However, the fact remains that he did have a licence and the investigation officer was convinced about the same. If that be so, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should face further ordeal or a trial. Crl.M.C.3714/2009. 3 7. There is no case for the prosecution that either the licence was not in force at the relevant time or it is a fraudulent document. Under such circumstances, it is only proper that the petitioner be exempted from going in for a trial. In the result, this petition is allowed and Annexure A as far as the petitioner is concerned stands quashed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.