IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 771 of 2010() --------------------------------- CC.403/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ALUVA CRIME NO.1067/2009 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 --------------------------------------------- 1. KISHORE, S/O.ANASOOYA, AGED 25, H.NO.118 NEAR IOC BASIN ROAD, MANALY EXPRESS ROAD, RAMASWAMY NAGAR, KARMEDU, THIRUVATHOOR, THIRUVALLOOR DIST. 2. KUMAR, S/O.MARY, AGED 27, H.NO.7, NEW HOUSE NO.13, 6TH STREET, RAJAMANGAL, WILLIVAGAM, CHENNAI-49, TAMILNADU. 3. KISHORE, AGED 26, S/O.VENKITAYA, DOOR NO.5, GOVT.COLONY, BENGELMADELAM, KARAPRATTIPPA, BITHRAGUND, NELLOOR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. 4. LASAR, S/O.MANORAMA, AGED 22, OLD HOUSE NO.54, NEW 24, INDIRA NAGAR, PALLAM, RAJAMANGALAM, VILLIVAKOM, CHENNAI-49, TAMILNADU. 5. JOHNSON, AGED 29, S/O.MALLAYA, H.NO.5, 2ND STREET, NEAR WATER TANK, RAJAMANGALAM, -DO- -DO- 6. PRADEEP, AGED 26, S/O.BABU AND SAKTHI, D.NO.45, NEAR TELUNGU CHURCH, 3RD CROSS ROAD JARDHAPET, KAVELI DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. BY ADV. MR.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE SATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.771 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.403/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva taken cognizance for the offence under Section 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel that based on discrepancy in the FI statement and subsequent statements, the cognizance Crmc 771/10 2 taken is to be quashed. Reliability of the evidence cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and also to seek order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.