IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4903 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.842/2008 OF KONNI POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT C.C.NO.16/2010 OF JFMC, NO.II, PATHANAMTHITTA ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. SOLOMON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. EASO VARUGHESE, CHARUVILAPUTHENVEETIL, PAYYANAMON, IRAVON VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SHINU BABY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. BABY CHACKO, KOTTOOR HOUSE, PAYYANAMON, IRAVON VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. RITHESH KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PLAMOOTIL HOUSE, IKKKAD, KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI. PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 691. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 031 R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4903 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.842 of 2008 of Konni Police Station and C.C.No.16 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sec. 332 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”) and Secs.184, 185, 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act”). Prosecution case is that on 31.12.2008 at about 9.15p.m petitioners 1 and 2 sitting on the back seat and the third petitioner who was allegedly drunk drove the car involved in the case along public road and on seeing the car coming, the first respondent along with other policemen who was on official duty signalled the car to stop but, petitioners 1 and 2 instigated the third petitioner to speed away, he did so and thereon first respondent and party followed the car and got it stopped. It is alleged that petitioners attacked the first respondent and caused injury on his right wrist which according to the prosecution attracted offence as alleged. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that assuming that offence under the Act are involved, no offence under Sec.332 of the IPC is made Crl.M.C.No.4903 of 2010 -: 2 :- out. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the materials on record, offence under Sec.332 of the IPC is also made out. 2. I have gone through Annexure-I, final report and heard counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. In the light of the order I propose to pass, I am not expressing any opinion as to whether offence punishable under Sec.332 of the IPC is made out since that is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to decide at the appropriate stage having regard to the materials on record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel (without prejudice to the contention of petitioners) that petitioners thought of pleading guilty since third petitioner is employed in the United States, wants to go back and cannot afford to be here since trial of the case might take quite some time. Learned counsel also expressed the view that petitioners would have thought of pleading guilty of offences punishable under Sec.332 of the IPC also had the sentence been confined to fine. But, I cannot give any direction or express any opinion in that regard since it is for the learned Magistrate to consider all aspects of the matter including whether petitioners are involved in any other case and Crl.M.C.No.4903 of 2010 -: 3 :- whether there was any premeditation for petitioners to commit the alleged offence. In case any such request is made, learned Magistrate shall consider all aspects of the matter including the nature of the injury allegedly suffered by the first respondent and take appropriate decision in the matter. With the observations made above this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-