IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1582 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.1508/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ MURALEEKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, POOVATHUMKADAVIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY DESOM. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.MANU TOM, SRI.B.N.SHIV SHANKER. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: R3. U.G.REMASAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.T.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT UPPATH HOUSE, ELANJIPRA PO, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 721. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 2/11/2010 IN CRL.M.A.NO.10229/2010 IN CRRP 1582/2010) R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C.NAIR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1582 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused in C.C No.1508/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy. He is prosecuted for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. He had moved an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge and dropping of further proceedings of the case contending that no offence was made out in the case against him. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/accused has filed the above revision challenging the order of the Magistrate. 2. Prosecution of the accused for the aforesaid offences was on the basis of a report filed by the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector, Mala, after conducting an investigation in crime No.171/2006, registered on a complaint from one Ramesan. The aforesaid Ramesan filed an intervening petition for his impleadment as additional third respondent in the revision and that being allowed he was impleaded as an additional respondent in the proceedings. Crl.R.P No.1582 OF 2010 2 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The crux of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused, on 07-05-2006, on account of previous enmity, criminally intimidated, assaulted and abused the de facto complainant and some others in the courtyard of a residential house and thereby he committed the offences imputed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urging that the words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and, further, this was a case foisted as a counterblast to an earlier crime registered at the instance of the petitioner as the de facto complainant, and as such, the present case should have been referred as a fake case following the principles laid down in “Augustine v State of Kerala” (1982 KLT 351(F.B)) . Learned counsel also took serious exception to the 'satisfaction' expressed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order that the records tendered by the prosecution 'prima facie established the offences imputed', which according to the counsel' amounted to prejudging before trial, and, then, causing prejudice to the accused. Crl.R.P No.1582 OF 2010 3 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that there is absolutely no merit in the challenges raised against the order of the Magistrate and after a full pledged investigation, the police has laid the report implicating the accused for the offences imputed. The application moved by the accused before the Magistrate to stop the proceedings was totally misconceived is the further submission of the counsel, and that the order rejecting such application does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Without going to the merits of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, it is to be noticed that the offences charged against the petitioner on a report filed by the police are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner/accused had moved an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for stopping the proceedings, which has application only to a summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint. Punishment for the offence under Section 506(ii) extends to seven years or with fine or both. When such an offence is also included among other offences, the case has to be tried as a warrant case, to which Section 258 of the Code has no application. When such a case is based on a police report, at best the accused can set up only a plea of discharge and Crl.R.P No.1582 OF 2010 4 that plea can be accepted only if the Magistrate is satisfied that the charges against him are groundless. That being the position of law, the application moved by the petitioner/accused under Section 258 of the Code did not warrant any consideration by the Magistrate, and so much so, the dismissal of the application by the Magistrate, but, on different reasoning, as stated above, has to be sustained. Expressions made by the learned Magistrate as to his satisfaction that the records relied by the prosecution prima facie established the offences need be only as formal expressions not on merits but made only for the limited purpose to consider whether the plea of accused for stoppage of the trial canvassed for is allowable or not. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case untrammelled by any of the observations made in his order as aforesaid. Revision is dismissed. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE