IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 944 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.1443/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- SALAHUDEEN,S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SABINALAYAM,AVANAVANCHERRY,KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SALAHUDEEN,S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, A.K.G.NAGAR,OPPOSITE DEVA HOSPITAL, AVANAVANCHERRY,ATTINGAL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.944 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20 th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the injured/de facto complainant in Crime No.189 of 2005 of Attingal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324 and 326 IPC and now pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal as C.C.No.1443/2006 seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings in the above case. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, who played an active role behind the assault on the petitioner, has been omitted by the Police. It is the case of the petitioner that eventhough the name of the 3rd respondent was specifically made a mention in the First Information Statement, he has been omitted in the final report and therefore the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner would have it that he came to know of about the above omission/deletion only when he received summons in C.C.No.1443 of 2006. Crl. M.C. No.944 of 2010 2 3. If the police have failed to array the 3rd respondent herein as an accused, his remedy is to file a protest complaint against the Police report. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not the remedy. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a protest complaint against the police report for the alleged deletion of the 3rd respondent from the array of accused. Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj