IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 4773 OF 2010() ------------------------- CC.439/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THALASSERY PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMEELA.P.K, W/O. LATE N. ACHUTHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, GURUKKALALDTH HOUSE, NEAR JUDGE'S BUNGLOW, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RAGHUL.A, S/O. LATE N. ACHUTHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, GURUKKALALDTH HOUSE, NEAR JUDGE'S BUNGLOW, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAGINA.A, S/O. LATE N. ACHUTHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, GURUKKALALDTH HOUSE, NEAR JUDGE'S BUNGLOW, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -31. 2. KALATHIL SATHI, W/O. LATE BHASKARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, NEAR P.G. MATCH COMPANY, MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 611. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.4773 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.73 of 2006 of Thalassery Police Station and C.C. No.439 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thalassery for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on the information given by the second respondent that on 24.02.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. herself and her brother, Bhaskaran had been to the house situated in about 12 cents over which she acquired half right as per a decree of the civil court. Petitioners restrained them from entering the house, uttered obscene words against her and her brother and assaulted them. Police registered a case. Annexure-1 is the FIR. Proceeding in C.C. No.439 of 2007 is sought to be quashed contending that the allegations are false and it is inherently improbable. It is contended by learned counsel that as per Annexure- 1, FIR the second respondent is seen to have given first information statement on 24.06.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. where she stated that she had been to the hospital for CRL.M.C. No.4773 of 2010 -: 2 :- treatment and thereafter is giving the statement but the wound certificate of the second respondent would show that she was examined by the Medial Officer on 24.06.2006 at about 6.55 p.m. It is also contended by learned counsel that petitioners 2 and 3 are police constables and the mahazar for seizure of the centry register would show that on the relevant day they were on duty. Counsel submitted that it is a case where second respondent and her brother assaulted the first petitioner at about 6.00 p.m. on 24.06.2006 regarding which police registered Crime No.76 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the said case is pending trial as C.C. No.391 of 2007. Learned counsel submitted that the very case of the second respondent regarding her right over the property is unsustainable and that petitioners 2 and 3 are implicated only for the purpose of affecting their job. 2. Reference is made to the seizure mahazar for the register to show that petitioners 2 and 3 were on official duty at the relevant time but the second respondent has asserted presence of petitioners 2 and 3 at the relevant time and place. Even in her wound certificate she has stated the history and CRL.M.C. No.4773 of 2010 -: 3 :- alleged cause of injury as assault by the third petitioner. It is a matter which the trial court has to decide whether as contended by the second respondent, petitioners 2 and 3 were present at the time and place of occurrence and involved in the incident or as pleaded by petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 were engaged in their official duty as register says. 3. Second respondent cannot be found fault with the time mentioned in her first information statement and time of examination in the wound certificate. Time is recorded by the Officer who record the statement or the Medical Officer who has examined her. Here is a case regarding the same incident there is case and a counter case. In these circumstances request for quashing proceeding against petitioners cannot be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that pendency of the case affected career of petitioners 2 and 3. Certainly that is a matter with which the learned Magistrate must be concerned. Having regard to the circumstances stated learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thalassery is directed to expedite trial of both the cases and dispose of the same as early as CRL.M.C. No.4773 of 2010 -: 4 :- possible. With the above direction this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv