IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1242 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.1728/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------- PREMACHANDRA KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, PRATHP MANDIRAM, VELLIMON WEST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smvd THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1242 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.345 of 2008 of Punalur Police Station and C.C.No.1728 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate- III, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 283 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”) . Prosecution case is that petitioner who was drunk, drove a KSRTC bus, stopped the bus across the road causing obstruction to the traffic, CW1 who was on traffic duty asked petitioner to remove the bus, petitioner in turn kicked CW1 and obstructed him from discharging official duty. Annexure- A2 is the final report. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him contending that no such incident has occurred and at any rate, the Police could not have registered, investigated or charge sheeted petitioner for offence under Section 185 of the Act without obtaining permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the jurisdictional Magistrate. 2. It is only when the offences as brought by the Police are non- cognizable in nature, that the procedure under Section 155(2) of the Code is to be followed. Here the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Act comes along with cognizable offences under the IPC which the Police is entitled to investigate without permission of the learned Magistrate. On the allegations Crl.MC No.1242/2011 2 made in the final report it is seen that the Investigating Officer has cited witness to prove the alleged incident. The drunkenness certificate produced would show that at the time of examination petitioner had smell of alcohol. In the circumstances, contention of petitioner that no offence as alleged is involved cannot be accepted. It is for the trial court to decide whether there is truth in the allegations. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate plea/defence in the trial court. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks