IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2375 of 2009() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.8/2008 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. ADUKADUKA GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, CHARAL, BEDADUKA VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, VIA CHENKALA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.K.KUNHABDULLA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD IN CR.NO.8/08 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI. 2. C.KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. MALINKU NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, BEDIRA ARAMANAKKAL, BEDADUKA VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, VIA CHENKALA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. R1BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B. JAYASOORYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2375 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.242/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasargod. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 complaint and the cognizance taken on Annexure-A4 final report. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A3 complaint was filed by the second respondent alleging that petitioner committed an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod sent it to the police under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Based on it, Crime No. 8/2008 of Bedakam Police Station was registered. After investigation, Annexure-A4 final report was submitted. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the CRMC 2375/09 2 petitioner is that even if the allegations in Annexure- A3 complaint are accepted as true, ingredients of the offence are not made out and the dispute is purely of civil nature and therefore, the proceedings is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no necessity to quash the complaint as sought for, when petitioner can very well seek an order of discharge before the Magistrate under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the Magistrate seeking for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and raise all the contentions raised herein before the Magistrate. With that liberty, petition is disposed. 25th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv