IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1822 OF 2011() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.959 OF 2010 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ PRAVAS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PRASANTH NIVAS, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHADRASENAN, S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, SIVAM VEEDU, POINT MUKKU, AVANAVANCHERY, EDAKKODU, ATTINGAL. 2. STSATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI V. MANU R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.959 OF 2010 OF ATINGAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.959 OF 2010 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1822 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.959 of 2010 of Attingal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 427, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 16.08.2010 at about 10.30 p.m on hearing commotion outside house the first respondent-de facto complainant opened the window of his room and found petitioner challenging him to come out. Petitioner threatened to kill the de facto complainant if he came out of the house. The wife of first respondent prevented him from going out. It is further alleged that petitioner kicked the gate, demanded the watchman to send out first respondent and pelted stone on his Car and caused damage. Further allegation is that petitioner used obscene words against the first respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the test of obscenity is not satisfied, charge under Sec.506(i) cannot stand since there is no real apprehension for the first respondent since petitioner was allegedly standing outside the compound and the CRL.M.C. No.1822 of 2011 -: 2 :- first respondent remained inside his house and even according to the first respondent the threat was that if the de facto complainant came out of the house he will be killed. 2. It is for the learned Magistrate while reading out particulars of offence or while framing charge as the case may be to look into the question whether any offences as alleged and attributed to the petitioner are made out. Even in the matter of summons trial it is open to the learned Magistrate to drop proceedings if materials are not sufficient to read out particulars of the offence under Sections 251 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) as held by this Court in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005 [3] KLT 617). Since in the present case the police investigated the case and submitted final report, Sec.258 of the Code is squarely applicable if facts justify that. Petitioner has that opportunity and if a contention in that regard is raised before learned Magistrate whom final report is filed necessarily, learned Magistrate has to consider that contention if the stage for that is not over. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code at this stage. Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to address CRL.M.C. No.1822 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate on the contentions he has raised in this proceeding at the time of reading out particulars of offence or framing charge as the case may be, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv