IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2432 of 2009 ------------------------------- CP.25/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY ........................................ PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O.NARAYANA MENON, MADAYIL RAMAKRISHNA, PERUNNA POST, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.REMITHA.M.A. RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNJAN, ATTUPURATHU THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPUZHA KADAVU BHAGOM, PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2442 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NOs. 2432 &2442 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated 14th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in crime No.72/2009 and 73/2009 of Changanassery police station respectively registered for the offences under Sections 341, 506(i), 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and 341, 323, 506(i), 308 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. They are now pending as C.P.25/2009 and C.P.24/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanassery. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and the final reports in the cases contending that it is only an abuse of process of court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that as per the FIR in crime 72/2009, information about the incident which allegedly took place at 3 p.m was received at the police station only CRMC 2432 & 2442/09 2 at 8.30 p.m, but FI Statement was seen recorded from the hospital at 6.30 p.m and in crime 73/2009 incident was allegedly taken place at 2.45 p.m and information was allegedly received at 9 p.m and FI statement was recorded at 5 p.m from the hospital and it establishes that the cases were foisted. Learned counsel also argued that though an advocate was originally shown as fourth accused, in the final report his name was not included as an accused and in all the wound certificates also time is not mentioned as alleged in the final report and in such circumstances, the cases are to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel are all matters for evidence and based on that omissions cases cannot be quashed. 5. Though learned counsel vehemently argued based on the time at which the FI statements were recorded, the time at which FIRs were registered and the time shown in the FIRs and wound certificates that the cases are foisted. It is not for this court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to appreciate the evidence and then CRMC 2432 & 2442/09 3 quash the final report as sought for. Discrepancy in the FIR regarding the time could easily be explained as the time shown in FIR, is the time when FIR was registered and not the time at which FI statement was recorded. Question whether materials and evidence are sufficient for conviction, need not be decided at this stage. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Sessions Judge, at the time of trial. He is also at liberty to seek discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. With that liberty petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.