IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4819 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.448/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... (CRIME NO.395/2009 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. V.SURENDRAN, S/O.APPU, SURALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, SBO COLONY, KAVUNAGAR, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SIVADASAN, S/O.APPU, SASIRAM, MELE NADAKKIL PARAMBA, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. SARITH BABU, S/O.SURENDRAN, SURALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, SBO COLONY, KAVU NAGAR, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. SAJEESH BABU, S/O.SURENDRAN, SURALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, SBO COLONY, KAVU NAGAR, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SRI.P.P.BALAN, SMT.M.MANJU, SRI.K.R.RANJITH. RESPONDENT(S): DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, U.K.LOTTERIES, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 121. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SHO MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4819 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.448/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamangalam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A4 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that ingredients of the offences are not attracted and it is only a malicious prosecution manifestly instituted by the first respondent to pressurise the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have already appeared before the learned Magistrate. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find it for this Court to scan the materials and decide whether ingredients of the offences are attracted, when petitioners could very well raise the CRMC 4819/10 2 contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the contentions raised herein and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If petitioners file a petition under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate shall hear the petitioners and decide whether they are to be discharged or charge is to be framed. If petitioners file a petition to dispense with their presence for that purpose, learned Magistrate shall not insist for their presence for that limited purpose. 9th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv