IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2105 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.522/2007 OF THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED. ---------------------------------- T.RAJESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, P.O.THAYYIL, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.S.SUJI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, CONTRACTOR, VRINDAVAN, NEAR FOREST OFFICE, KUNNATHUMCHAL, THANA, KANNUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2105 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner in Crime No.522/2007 of Kannur Town Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. Case of the petitioner is that he was not involved in the incident and second respondent/defacto complainant had stated that he has no grievance against the petitioner and therefore, the case as against him is to be quashed. Affidavit of the second respondent was also filed in support of the same. In the affidavit, second respondent stated that he now realise that petitioner herein is not the person involved in the above crime and he has no grievance against him. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the light CRMC 2105/09 2 of the affidavit of the second respondent, there is no chance for an ultimate conviction of the petitioner, even if he is tried and therefore, the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. 3. Annexure-1 FIR shows that second respondent did not identify the persons who committed the offence on the night of 13.10.2007. What was alleged is that while he was proceeding towards his house and reached near Green Hotel, three persons approached him and asked for money to drink toddy and when second respondent refused, he was confined and after inflicting injury on his hand, Rs.12,000/- and a mobile phone were forcibly taken from his pocket and thereby they committed the offences and second respondent had gone to the doctor where he was admitted and was being treated. 4. It is clear from Annexure-1 FIR that second respondent did not identify the persons, as he had no previous acquaintance with them. In such circumstances, based on the affidavit of second respondent, petitioner is not entitled to get the CRMC 2105/09 3 case as against him quashed. As the matter is under investigation and the question regarding identity of the culprits is also to be investigated by the police, petitioner is not entitled to get the case as against him quashed at this stage. Petition is dismissed. 16th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv