IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4223 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.73/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 3 & 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. JAISON MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, MAVEKUDY HOUSE, KARUKADAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RANJITH, S/O.GOPI, SHASTA BHAVAN, PADINJARE THARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PETER, S/O.MATHAN PAILY, POOTHUNKAL VEEDU, MATHIRAPPILLY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 691. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4223 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010. O R D E R Petitioners are accused three and four in C.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam, taken cognizance for the offence under section 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners contending that the FI statement does not disclose any allegation against the petitioners and petitioners were incorporated as accused only in 2007 and the materials produced before the learned Magistrate do not establish the case alleged against the petitioners and, therefore, it is to be quashed. 2. When questioned the learned counsel submitted that charge has already been framed by the learned Magistrate and the case is posted for recording evidence. Petitioners did not file a petition before the learned Magistrate for discharge under Sections 239 of code of Criminal procedure. They also did not challenge the order framing charge. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find it proper for this Court to appreciate the evidence and decide whether there is Crl.M.C No.4223 OF 2010 2 any acceptable evidence against the petitioner as sought for. It is for the learned Magistrate to consider. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate during trial. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns