IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 465 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.465/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHERTHALA CRIME NO.222/2008 OF PATTANAKKAD POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED -------------------------------- N.J.RAY,S/O.N.P.JONES,NEDUVELIL VEEDU, WARD-9,ANGADI PANCHAYATH,RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI..PRABHU MATHEW SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.MAYA ANTHARJANAM RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SASIKUMARA KURUP,S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, NANGASSERIL,PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O,KOLLAM, PIN-691 587. ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR R2 SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN FOR R2 SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.465 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.465 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. That is a case arising from a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). According to respondent No.2, on account of the rash and negligent driving the car driven by petitioner hit the car which respondent No.2 was driving, resulting in damage to the car and injury to respondent No.2. It is contended by petitioner that no offence as alleged is made out, Police had registered a case against respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Code, he faced trial but on account of the understanding reached between petitioner and respondent No.2, petitioner did not give strong evidence and thereon respondent No.2 was acquitted. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to various records produced along with this petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the Public Prosecutor. 3. The vehicles driven by petitioner and respondent No.2 were coming from opposite direction and, at Thanki junction the vehicles collided. The Police investigated the case and submitted final report against respondent No.2 as Crl.M.C.No.465/2010 2 aforesaid in which case he was acquitted. Thereon respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of petitioner. That complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) . The Police registered Crime No.222 of 2008 and after investigation submitted Annexure-B, final report stating that petitioner has not committed any offence (in tune with their finding which led to the final report in C.C.No. 810 of 2007 against respondent No.2). On the Police submitting final report as above stated, respondent No.2 filed Annexure-A, complaint against petitioner alleging offences as first above stated. That complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.465 of 2009 which is sought to be quashed. Now the question to be decided is whether the complaint is to be quashed for which one has to refer to the averments in the complaint where there are allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of petitioner. Merely because respondentNo.2 was charge-sheeted, prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Code and was acquitted, it could not be said that the complaint against petitioner is not maintainable. What is the worth of the allegations in the complaint in the light of the result of the investigation in C.C.No.810 of 2007, the final report therein and the prosecution of respondent No.2 in the said case are all matters which the trial court has to be decided after trial of the case. I am afraid, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is not required to go into the merit of contentions raised. That is left for decision by the Crl.M.C.No.465/2010 3 trial court at the appropriate stage. In the circumstances, the request of petitioner to quash the proceedings cannot be accepted. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. Court below shall dispose of the case untrammelled by any observation contained in this order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks