IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 459 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.479/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSESD: ------------------------ K. BABU THOMAS, S/O. DR.P.T. KOSHY, THOMAS CLINIC, KOZHINJAMPARA - 678 555, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.746/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.459/06 //DISMISSED// 21.1.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.459 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.479/05 pending on the file of the Court of J.F.C.M., Chittur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 341, 324 and 427 of IPC. The allegation against the petitioner as revealed from the copy of the F.I.R. produced as Annexure-I is that while the de facto complainant was driving an autorickshaw, bearing No.KL-09B-3574 on 31.10.2005 at 11 AM, the petitioner/accused stopped that vehicle and hit the headlight of it with a stone, which was broken and after breaking the front glass, the stone fell on the chest of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kozhinjampara. The FIR was registered on 31.10.2005 itself against the petitioner under the above said sections. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure-I FIR and the charge sheet in C.C.No.479/05 pending before the Court of J.F.C.M., Chittur against the Crl.M.C.459/06 -2- petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are no sufficient allegations in the FIR to make out a prima facie case against him under sections 341, 324 and 427 of IPC. and therefore, no cognizance can be taken against him by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the witnesses arrayed on the side of the prosecution also are incompetent to prove the prosecution case for the reason that one of the witnesses is a fictitious person and the other is an interested witness, who is the brother of the complainant. Further, plea of alibi also will be the defence of the accused in the above case. 4. This petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the FIR, Annexure A-I was lodged against the accused only after investigation and charge sheet was laid against him on 29.11.2005, who was absconding. Annexure A-II produced by the petitioner would reveal that cognizance of Crl.M.C.459/06 -3- the case was taken by the learned Magistrate and issued summons on 3.1.2006 with direction to appear by the accused before that court on 18.2.2006. On receipt of the summons from that court, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing this petition on 15.2.2006. This Court as per order in Crl.M.A.No.746/06 dated 16.2.2006, stayed the matter. 5. Whether the allegations advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the witnesses is a fictitious person or not will be decided by the learned Magistrate after issuing summons to that witness. As far as the other witness is concerned, who is the brother of the de facto complainant, he cannot be stated to be as the interested witness for the reason of their relationship. The plea of alibi as a defence on behalf of the accused before the concerned Court will depend upon the nature of the evidence, both oral or documentary to be adduced before the concerned court. Whether, prima facie case is there to proceed against the petitioner for the above offences can be looked into by the learned Magistrate, which was done in the present case and proceeded against the petitioner and the case is Crl.M.C.459/06 -4- pending before that court as C.C.No.479/05 and summons was already issued for the appearance of the accused. After considering the facts and circumstances alleged in this petition, I find that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and issued summons directing him to appear before that court. There is no merit in this petition to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn