IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2086 of 2009 ---------------------------------- CC.NO.1751/2008 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ 6TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ M.S.PURUSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, MELOTHMELIL HOUSE, KALAYATTIKKARA, KANJIRAMATTOM. BY ADV. MR.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM. RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ ACCUSED 1-5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION INVESTIGATING OFFICER, IN C.C.NO.1751/2008) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031. 2. K.V.MADANAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VANDI RESIDING AT REWATHY (KARUPADANNAYIL)DOCTORS LANE NEAR U.C. COLLEGE, KARIMALUR PANCHAYATH, ALUVA WEST, PARAVUR TALUK. 3. D.MANIKANDAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, TC 50675, UPASANA, KULATHARA, KARAMANA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 4. P.KESAVADAS, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.68/536, SREEVANI HOUSE, KARIPPALLY LANE ROAD,KALOOR, ELAMKULAM. 5. SHEEJA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. RAMESH BABU, RESIDING AT RAKESH BHAWAN, SAGARA NAGAR -67, KOLLAM EAST, KOLLAM. 6. K.C.SAROJINI DEVI, W/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM HOUSE, EDASSERY MALA BHAGOM, ERUVELI, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B. VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2086 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the sixth accused in C.C.No.1751/ 2008 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 2 to 6 are the other accused. Petitioner was the Superintendent of Surveys, Tripunithura. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint contending that without sanction as provided under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution as against the petitioner is bad and therefore, it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that as per Annexure-A5 final report, the allegation against the petitioner is that in collusion with the other accused, he approved the report submitted by accused 4 and 5 and thereby committed the offences and therefore, the act alleged against the petitioner is an act in discharge CRMC 2086/09 2 of his official duties and hence, sanction is a must. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that defacto complainant is not made a party. It is pointed out that petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate before framing the charge. I find that petitioner could very well raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash the proceedings. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and seek discharge raising all the contentions raised herein. Petitioner is also entitled to file a petition to dispense with his personal presence for the purpose of filing the petition as well as hearing on that petition. 13th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv