IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4568 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- [CR.NO.276/2010 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM] ................ PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, S/O.MAYAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VARIYAPPULLY HOUSE, KALATHILPADI, ERAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4568 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 13th December, 2010 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.276/2010 of Perumpadappu Police Station registered for the offence under Section 17(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, against petitioner contending that, there is no material in Annexure-I FIR or Annexure-II mahazar to implicate the petitioner and therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel Crmc 4568/10 2 is that the house where search was conducted belongs to the first accused, father of the petitioner and there is nothing in Annexure-I or Annexure-II to show that the petitioner was in possession of narcotic drug and in such circumstances, petitioner cannot be implicated on the allegation that he ran away from the house, when narcotic drug was seized. 4. On hearing the the learned counsel and going though the FIR and mahazar, I do not find that at this stage, the FIR is to be quashed so as to thwart the investigation, especially when the FIR shows that when the officers who conducted the search in the house, petitioner was there along with his father. It is when on search narcotic drug was found out inside the Godrej almirah, petitioner suddenly ran away from the house. It is definitely a Crmc 4568/10 3 matter for investigation. In such circumstances, the investigation cannot be quashed at this stage. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.