IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 709 of 2008() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 19 OF 2007 OF PALLIKATHODE POLICE STATION CC.226/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------- ISSAC.N.ISSAC, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC, NEDUMAVIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHECHAMMA ANTONY, W/O.ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM EAST P.O, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR SRI.K.R.SUNIL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 709 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the first accused in a prosecution (C.C.226 or 2007) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 447, 451, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w. 149 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken in that case against the accused persons, including the petitioner herein, on the basis of a final report submitted by the police in Crime No.19 of 2007 of Pallikkathode police station. The incident in that crime allegedly took place at 11 p.m. on 11.1.2007 in the house of the defacto complainant. Investigation was completed and final report was filed. Prosecution have cited six witnesses, of which Cws. 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses. CW1 is the defacto complainant. CW2 is her husband and Cws. 3 and 4 are the daughters-in-law of Cws.1 and 2. CW5 is an attester to the scene mahazar, whereas CW6 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the final report. Crl.M.C.No. 709 of 2008 2 2. The short prayer of the petitioner herein is that invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the said prosecution against him may be quashed. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this crime has been registered as Crime No.19 of 2007 as a counter blast to an earlier crime registered as Crime No.18 of 2007. In that crime two children of the defacto complainant/Cw1 are the accused persons. After investigation final report, Annex.A4, has been filed against two children of the defacto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. 4. The crux of the allegations in Crime No.18 of 2007 is that the two accused persons therein, who are the children of the defacto complainant in this (Crime No.19 of 2007) crime, had attempted to cause the death of the petitioner herein by knocking him down by a running Maruti van. According to the petitioner, the allegations raised in the prosecution against him are totally false and are invented later on, only as a defence and to confuse issues consequent to Crl.M.C.No. 709 of 2008 3 the prosecution in Crime No. 18 of 2007 against the sons of the defacto complainant. 5. The counsel relies on the following circumstances: i) The defacto complainant in Crime No.19 of 2007 is the mother of the two accused persons in Crime No.18 of 2007. ii) Both incidents took place on 11.1.2007. The incident in Crime No.18 of 2007 having taken place earlier at 6.30 p.m. and the crime having been registered on 16.1.2007. iii) Crime No. 19 of 2007 was registered only later on 17.1.2008, though the incident in that case is alleged to have taken place at 11 p.m. on 11.1.2007. In both crimes cognizance has been taken on the basis of private complaints filed before the Magistrate and referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. iv) All the witnesses cited in crime No.19 of 2007 are close relatives of the defacto complainant. 6. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The circumstances relied on by the petitioner can be urged by him in the prosecution initiated against him, but they are certainly not sufficient reasons to justify the prayer for quashing of proceedings. At the moment and Crl.M.C.No. 709 of 2008 4 with the available inputs I find absolutely no reason to assume that the allegations raised in Crime No. 19 of 2007 and the final report, Annex.A3, can in any way be said to be grossly false and untenable as to justify or warrant the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions in the prosecution before the learned Magistrate. 8. The second respondent/defacto complainant has made a request that both cases may be directed to be tried together at the Sessions Court, where the prosecution on the basis of Annex.4 is pending. The said request is totally unacceptable as the cases are not in the nature of a case and counter case. Time, venue etc. of the offences in the two crimes are not the same and the prayer for disposal by the same court cannot also be accepted. (R. BASANT) Judge tm