IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3394 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO.909/2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION) .......... PETITIONERS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED PERSON: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANDAN.V, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, ANEESH BHAVAN VETTIL, PALLATHURUTHI WARD, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, AMPALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. C.A. BAHULEYAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, PARAVUR, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the defacto complainant and the injured in Crime No.909/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 342, 308, 323 and 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-1 FIR. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that no injury was sustained by the petitioners and at present, they have no grievance against anybody. It is submitted that there was some disputes within the association of owners of tipper lorries consequent to the strike and subsequently, all the disputes were settled and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. It is also submitted that petitioners have not identified anybody and in such circumstances, there is no necessity to continue the prosecution. CRMC 3394/09 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on investigation, two unidentified persons, who allegedly attacked the petitioners, were identified and the case is under investigation. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to quash Annexrue-1 FIR as canvassed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they have already given a statement before the police. It is for the police to investigate the case. If it is found that no offence has been committed and even if there was an incident and there is no material to fix the identity of the assailants, police cannot file a final report. It is for the police to consider, in the light of the statement of the petitioners, whether an offence is committed and if so, by whom. I do not find any reason to believe that if there is no material, police will file a final report. If petitioners or anybody else are aggrieved by the final report, if any filed, they are at liberty to approach this Court at that stage. Petition is disposed. 9th December, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv