IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4258 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.75/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... (CRIME NO.331/2003 OF KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. BIJU KUMAR, "CHERUKONATHU VEEDU" VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-1) 2. PRAVEEN, "CHINNU BHAVAN" VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-3). 3. RAJESH, "RAJESH BHAVAN", VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-4). 4. RATHEESH, "RAJESH BHAVAN", VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-5). 5. KISHORE KUMAR, "VISHALA BHAVAN", VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-6). 6. PRASANNA KUMAR @ UNNI, VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-7). 7. DEEPU, "MOOZHIYIL VEEDU", CHEMPAZHANTHY SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-9). Kss ..2/- ..2.... CRMC.NO.4258/2011 8. SAMUAEL, S/O.KUNJAPPI, VIKAS NAGAR, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-10). 9. DEEPU, S/O.PAPPAN, VIKAS NAGAR, BANGALADESH COLONY, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-11). 10. MARTIN, "CHENGONATHU VEEDU", VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (A-12). BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. G.SREEDHARAN, PAIVILAKONAM THADATHARIKATHUVEEDU, KALLAYAM P.O., PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: R3. SATHEESHAN, S/O.SANKARAN, RENJINI NILAYAM, ALAMCODE, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 19/12/2011 IN CRL.M.A.NO.8379/2011) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.4258/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A: PHOTOCOPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME C.C. 75/06. ANNEXURE-B: ORDER DATED 18/12/11 IN MC 3942/11. ANNEXURE-C: AFFIDAVIT OF ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT DTD.15/12/11. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4258 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.75/2006 of J.F.C.M.-III, Thiruvananthapuram which arose out of Crime No.331/2003 of Kazhakoottam Police Station. The allegation is that there was altercation between the accused persons and one George in connection with a church festival. Thereafter a few persons went in search of the person who created annoyance and trouble at that place. The persons went there in a private vehicle which was owned by the Addl. 3rd respondent. It is alleged that the petitioners were under the impression that the persons who reached there were the persons sent by George mentioned above and so there was an altercation and assault between the two groups. But later it was realised that the persons who went there in a private vehicle were actually ASI and Crl.M.C. No.4258 of 2011 -: 2 :- two or three police men. It was stated that those persons were not in uniform and that was one of the reasons why the petitioners thought that the persons who reached were the henchmen of George mentioned earlier. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact CW1, the ASI was present before the court on the last hearing date but he was not examined by the learned APP since he did not appear on summons but appeared on his own. CW1 retired from service. In the nature of the materials furnished by the prosecution, it can be very well contended that the altercation and the assault took place without realising the fact that CW1 and others were the ASI and other public servants. So much so, the charge under Sec.332 IPC cannot be sustained. So far as Sec.427 IPC is concerned, the Addl. 3rd respondent who was the owner of the vehicle who is represented in this Court has filed affidavit stating that he has no grievance in the matter. Since the offence under Sec.332 IPC cannot be sustained Crl.M.C. No.4258 of 2011 -: 3 :- and the other offences are seen to be purely personal in nature, further proceeding against these petitioners is only to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceeding against these petitioners in C.C.No.75/2006 of J.F.C.M.-III, Thiruvananthapuram (Crime No.331/2003 of Kazhakoottam Police Station) is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt