IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1554 of 2007 ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO.111/2007 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- JOSEPH ALLEN, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, FLAT 8B, 8TH FLOOR, CRESCENT FLAT, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.G.DEVAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AMBUJA NIVAS, KARSHAKA ROAD, COCHIN-27. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.DAMODHARAN NAIR, S/O.A.KUNJAMBU NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, NO.35/1872, SHABARI, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2009, THE COURT ON 04/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- CRL.M.C.1554 OF 2007 ----------------------- Dated: March 4, 2009 ORDER On 30.1.2007 the 1st respondent filed Annexure B complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First CLass-I, Ernakulam against the petitioner herein alleging that there was an agreement for sale in between the petitioner and that the 1st respondent and that the petitioner breached the terms of the agreement which amounted to offence under secs.415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town North Police Station. Based upon Annexure B forwarded to the Station House Officer under sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case as Crime No.111/2007 was registered against the petitioner for offence under secs.415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by Annexure C First Information Report. Pleading that even if the averments in Annexure B complaint as such is true, no offence under sec.415 or sec.420 IPC is made out and that the attempt of the 1st respondent was to see that a case is CRL.M.C.1554 OF 2007 -:2:- registered against the petitioner and to persuade him to settle the civil suit which was already instituted basing upon the agreement for sale, this petition was filed seeking an order to quash Annexure C First Information Report, in exercise of the powers conferred under sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Since Annexure B complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer under sec.156(3)of the Cr.P.C., the Station House Officer has no other go but to register a case. It is accordingly Annexure C First Information Report was registered. Once the case is registered, it is for the Station House Officer to proceed with the investigation and to file a final report. In the event it is revealed that no offence was disclosed, the Station House Officer is bound to file a report to that effect. But, because of the stay granted from this Court, no investigation was further conducted and no chance was obtained to file any report. There is little material to show that Annexure C First Information Report was prepared CRL.M.C.1554 OF 2007 -:3:- on any other extraneous consideration, whereas it was registered as per the procedure prescribed in pursuance of the order of the magistrate. The petitioner had not at all assailed the order of the Magistrate forwarding the complaint to the police under sec.156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the circumstances, the legality, correctness or propriety of the order forwarding the complaint to the police under sec.156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not being examined. The next course open to the Station House Officer is to proceed with the investigation and to file a final report. I find that this is not a fit case to invoke the powers vested on this Court under sec.482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the First Information Report so log as the order of the magistrate is not challenged. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was constrained to file this petition as he was harassed by the police at the influence of the 1st respondent with a motive to see that somehow or other the matter is settled. I fail to find any circumstance to conclude that the petitioner was in any way harassed by the CRL.M.C.1554 OF 2007 -:4:- police. There is little material to show that the 2nd respondent had initiated any action in pursuance to the registration of the First Information Report. The allegation of the petitioner seems to be baseless. However, the 2nd respondent shall see that the petitioner is in no way be harassed during the course of the investigation. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. The 2nd respondent shall complete the investigation as early as possible and file a final report. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE mt/-