IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1915 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.113/2011 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. SHAJU P.K, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,PULIYORATH HOUSE, VADAKARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 605 2. RAJU T.K,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,PULIYORATH HOUSE, VADAKARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 605 3. JAYAN P.K,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,PULIYORATH HOUSE, VADAKARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 605. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN, SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHANDRIKA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.MURALIL, NADUPPARAMBIL,VADAKARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM-686 605. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.1915/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 20/09/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. ANNEX.2: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT UNDER SECTION 294(B), 506(I), 427, 452 AND 34 IPC. ANNEX.3: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH 161 CR.PC. STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES. ANNEX.4: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED BY MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM. ANNEX.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE POLICE ON 11/09/2010. ANNEX.6: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.357/2010 DTD. 11/9/2010 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1915 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.399 of 2010 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent made to the Superintendent of Police which was forwarded to the Circle Inspector concerned for enquiry and action. The Circle Inspector directed the Sub Inspector concerned to direct parties to appear before him. That complaint on reaching Thalayoalaparambu Police, they registered the FIR as aforesaid. Investigation followed and it resulted in a final report. Based on the final report learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom took cognizance of the offence against petitioners and filed C.C. No.113 of 2011. Learned counsel contends that direction given to the Sub Inspector was to direct parties to the office of the Circle Inspector. It is also submitted that allegations made against petitioners do not involve a case of grievous nature so that the police was required to investigate. CRL.M.C. No.1915 of 2011 -: 2 :- Further contention is that complaint to the police and statement of witnesses are contradictory. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The Irregularity if any pointed out by leaned counsel in the police registering a case without complying with the direction of the Circle Inspector to send the parties to his office cannot in my view affect the power of police to register a case on getting information about the commission of a cognizable offence or power of court to take cognizance on a final report if it disclosed such offence. In Annexure-A1, complaint preferred to the Superintendent of Police on 20.09.2010 the second respondent alleged that at a time when herself and her daughters alone were in the house, petitioners trespassed into her house on 08.09.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. damaged fiber chairs, criminally intimidated and used obscene words at them. It is true that the alleged incident occurred on 08.09.2010 whereas Annexure-A1, complaint is preferred only on 20.09.2010. How far that delay, if any, affected veracity of evidence which the second respondent my give in the trial court is a matter which that trail court has to decide. So also the alleged discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses as to whether petitioners or any CRL.M.C. No.1915 of 2011 -: 3 :- of them were carrying weapon at the time of incident. These are matters which trial court has to decide. I do not find reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take appropriate plea/defence before the trial court. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv