IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1141 of 2010() ------------------------------------- (CMP.NO.2381 OF 2007 IN CP.NO.4/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KANJIRAPPALLY) ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, PADINJAREL VEETIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. PRASAD, S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MULLOOR VEETIL, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. PRASAD.J, S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, VILLANICKAL VEEDU, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. SATHEESH, S/O. SANKARA PANCIKER, EDACHIERYATHU VEETTIL, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 5. PRADEEP, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VAZHAPILLIL VEETIL, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. PRASAD, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THAZHATHEL VEEDU, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 7. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, ONATHAPPANKUNNEL VEEDU, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 8. MADHU, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, PUTHENPURACKAL VEETTIL, URALIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. Kss ..2/- ...2.... CRMC.NO.1141/2010 9. THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, PENDANATHU VEETIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 10. JAYAKUMAR,S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, THOTTUNGAL VEETIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 11. ABHILASH, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, ONATHAPPAN KUNNEL VEEDU, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 12. HARIDAS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHUPARAMBIL VETTIL, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, URULIKKUNNAM KARA,KANJIRAPPALLY. 13. SHIBU, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VILLANICKAL VEETTIL, ELIKUKULAM VILLAGE, URULIKKUNNAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY. 14. RAJESH, S/O. BHASKAR4AN NAIR, VILLANICKAL VEETTIL, ELIKUKULAM VILLAGE, URULIKKUNNAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SALIN C. NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, CHORIYANMAKKAL VEETIL, URALIKKUNNUM KARA, ELIKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, PRESIDENT OF SAMPOORNA SWADESHI GRAMA VIKASANA DHARMA SANGHAM, 49/5 ELIKKULAM PANCHAYATH, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1141 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.P.4/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A, order whereunder cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 395, 447, 143, 144, 294(b), 506(ii) and 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners have earlier filed Crl.M.C.78/2009 when the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the protest complaint. By Annexure B order, finding that the order taking cognizance does not show that learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the final report, the order Crmc 1141/10 2 taking cognizance was quashed directing the Magistrate to conduct a proper enquiry under Section 202. Annexure A order was passed thereafter. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash that order contending that learned Magistrate has not conducted proper enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of Annexure B order. Argument of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that apart from Cws.8 and 9, no other witnesses was examined after Annexure B order and Cws.8 and 9 deposed only with regard to the factum of possession and when there is no material to support the allegations about the incident and so the cognizance should not have been taken. 2. Annexure A order shows that Cws.2 to 6 were not only members of the society but had Crmc 1141/10 3 witnessed the incident. Learned Magistrate has specifically recorded that even though final report is against the case of the complainant, on consideration of the sworn statement of Cws.1 to 9 he is prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. In the light of these findings, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A order. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the grounds available to them at the time of trial. As it is a committal case, before committing the case, Magistrate has to record the statements of all the witnesses to be examined before the sessions court. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.