IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 274 of 2010() ------------------------ SC.146/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD (CRIME NO.446/07 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RAJEEV.V.S/O.PRAMESWARAN NAIR, VADAKKATHU HOUSE, KALLADATHUR (POST) KUMARANELLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SARASWATHI W/O.LATE MOHANAN EMBRANTHIRI, PERINKANOOR MADOM, CHEKKODE (PO), ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PP SRI.S U NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.274 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 28th January 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash all further proceedings pursuant to SC No.146/09 pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Palakkad. 2. The petitioner is an accused in the above case for having committed the offence punishable under S.306 IPC. He relies on the decision in Cyriac v. SI of Police (2005(3) KLT 673) in support of his contentions. 3. The case was initially registered under the caption 'unnatural death' and the investigation was proceeded. Ultimately, Crime No.446/07 was registered, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 1. After completing the investigation, the final report was laid before the Court. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the CR.MC 274/10 2 Sessions Court. It was numbered as SC No.146/09. The matter essentially depends on the state of mind of the accused at the time of uttering the annoying words. Merely by looking at the words stated to have been uttered by the accused, one cannot say that offence is not made out. The circumstances and the context in which the words were said, have considerable effect on the determination of the case. That requires evidence. 4. If the petitioner feels that there are not sufficient materials to prove the offences disclosed against him, he is free to move for discharge before the appropriate Court. Subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CR.MC 274/10 3 CR.MC 274/10 4