IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1906 of 2006() ------------------------- CMP.10718/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- P.B.PRASOBH,S/O.P.A.BALAN, PALLATH HOUSE,VELUPADAM P.O.,THRISSUR. (THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMMARA). BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/: STATE & ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MURALIKRISHNAN, POOVATHUMKADAVIL VEETTIL,KUZHIKATTUSERRY, THAZEKKADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.M.C.No.1906 OF 2006-C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 O R D E R petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-A2 order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda in C.M.P.No.10718/2005 “returning” the complaint to the petitioner /complainant thereby refusing to take cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. 2. The learned Magistrate took the above view since it was revealed from the records that the petitioner/complainant had preferred the above complaint against respondent No.2 herein on the basis of the very same allegations which were the subject matter of C.C.No.1005/2002 on the file of the same court. The said case was withdrawn by the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by order dated January 14, 2004. Petitioner had thereafter filed the present complaint seeking prosecution of respondent No.2. 3. When this petition came up for consideration on October 17, 2008, it was revealed in the course of hearing that the petitioner was in fact served with notice on the application 2 Crl.M.C.No.1906/06 filed by the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code and that he had engaged a counsel also in the matter. 4. The lower court records were called for and perused. A perusal of the records revealed that the petitioner had in fact engaged a counsel and sought for time to file counter statement in the application for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Code. But, the above fact was not mentioned at all in the Crl.M.C. The specific ground raised by the petitioner in the Crl.M.C was that he was not served with notice and that he was not heard. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to appear before this Court in person and show cause why appropriate action shall not be initiated against him not only for abusing the process of the court but also for committing perjury. 5. Sri. Jacob Sebastian, Advocate, who had been appearing for the petitioner till that stage, relinguished his vakalath. Petitioner appeared in person as directed. He was heard. 6. Petitioner is presently serving as Circle Inspector in the police department. He has filed an affidavit explaining 3 Crl.M.C.No.1906/06 the circumstances under which the present petition under Section 482 happened to be filed. He has averred in the affidavit that as a dutiful citizen and responsible police officer, he had not willfully attempted to defraud or to abuse the process of this Court. He further states that he has great respect and regard for the authority and majesty of the court and if for any reason any of his statements appeared to be “mischievous”, he tendered sincere, unconditional and whole hearted apology. 7. Sri. Bechu Kurian, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the action of the petitioner does not appear to be as innocent as he tries to make it appear and that he had willfully supported the relevant materials with malafide intentions. 8. I do not propose to deal with the above aspect of the matter at this stage, particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a young officer. However, it would have been highly desirable and appropriate if the petitioner had placed on record all the relevant facts when he preferred this petition before this Court. I refrain from making any other observation 4 Crl.M.C.No.1906/06 in this behalf. Petitioner, who is personally present in court seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. Permission is granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl