IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1632 of 2010() ------------------------- CRIME NO.94/2009 OF KALLOORKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 5TH ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- MOHAN NATH K.L. S/O.K.KUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, UTHRADAM, KAVUMPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KALLOORKAD POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA. (CRIME NO.94/2009) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.1632 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19 th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.94/2009 of Kalloorkad Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 1 B(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 34 IPC seeks to quash Annexure A FIR. 2. According to the petitioner, as against the 2nd accused the said FIR was quashed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3714/2009 as evidenced by Annexure B order dated 15.2.2010. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to Annexure A- FIR, the investigation was completed and final report was filed on 11.5.2010 before the J.F.C.M, Muvattupuzha and therefore the petitioner should have challenged the final report if at all there is any ground to do so. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.3.2009, accused numbers 1 to 5 while proceeding in a Tata Indica Car were detained by certain persons who informed the Police and when the Police arrived at the spot they found A1 and A2 in possession of two guns and A1 and A2 were unable to produce the licence for the guns. Since A1 and A2 were in possession of Crl. M.C. No.1632 of 2010 2 fire arms without licence, the above crime was registered. 5. During subsequent investigation, it has been found that both A1 and A2 were having valid licence for the guns in question. The prosecution has no case that apart from possessing guns without licence any other offences have been committed by the accused persons. This Court quashed the FIR as against the 2nd accused in view of the fact that the 2nd accused were found to have a licence for the gun. The petitioner was not in possession of any gun and was only found in the company of A1 and A2. From that alone he cannot be said to have committed any offence. Even if the final report has been filed, the basic fact remains to be the same. Hence, it will be an abuse of the process of the court to permit the prosecution of the petitioner. Accordingly, Annexure A FIR, so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, (A5) is quashed. It goes without saying that the final report filed also will have the same result so far as the petitioner is concerned. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above. Dated this the 19 th day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj