IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 64 of 2009() ---------------------------------- C.C. NO.925/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL. ............. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 43 ------------------------- 1. SUFFYUDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED SALI, SHAMANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, NEAR THUMBA CHURCH, THUMBA, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL JABBAR, MANACAUD VILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR THUMBA CHURCH, THUMBA, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KAMALAN @ KUTTAN, KUMIZHIKKARA MELE PUTHENVEEDU, KAZHAKUTTAM. 4. BADUDDEEN, S/O.ALI MUHAMMED, MANACAUD VILAKOM VEEDU, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE. 5. SATHEESAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, PULLATTUKARI SATHIVILASOM, MANACAUD VILAKOM VEEDU, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE. 6. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.ISMAIL PILLAI, SHAMEER MANZIL, VADAKKUM BHAGAM, KAZHAKUTTAM. 7. VIJAYAN.J., VIPIN HOUSE, NETTAIKONAM, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KAZHAKUTTAM. 8. SHAIJU, KARYIL THOPPIL VEEDU, MENAMKULAM. 9. JAYARAJAN PILLAI, ANJANAM, PULLATTUKARI, MENAMKULAM. CRMC. NO.64/2009 10. SATHEESH KUMAR, KAMAKARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, VILAYIL, KAZHAKUTTAM. 11. RAJESH R., THOPPIL VANNA VEEDU, KARIYIL, MENAMKULAM. 12. SHIBU, S/O.BABU, PULLIVEEDU, KARIYIL, MENAMKULAM. 13. IRSHAD @ PRASAD, CHANDRATHIL VEEDU, MENAMKULAM. 14. ANILKUMAR, VIJAYASADANAM, ILIPPAKUZHI,KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, KAZHAKUTTAM. 15. HUSSAIN, MANCAUDUVILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, KAZHAKUTTAM. 16. ANILKUMAR.C., ANIL BHAVAN, MENAMKULAM. 17. V.R.VINODKUMAR, PULLATTUKARI VEEDU, KARIYIL, MENAMKULAM. 18. SHIJU, LLIPPAKUZHI PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KAZHAKUTTAM. 19. ARUN, KARIYIL PUTHUMOODU VEEDU, MENAMKULAM. 20. SHUBHASH KUMAR, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KAZHAKUTTAM. 21. MUJEEB, MANACAUD VILAKOM VEEDU, KAZHAKUTTAM. 22. VINOD.P., PULIMOODU BEENA BHAVAN, KARIYIL, MENAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER (KARAKONAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 64 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners are 22 of the 43 accused persons, who face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283 and 188 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they were members of an unlawful assembly, who, in prosecution of their common object obstructed a public pathway with contumacious intent. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. According to him, the allegations are raised without any valid reason. All the accused persons were autorikshaw drivers and they were raising protest against the inaction on the part of the police. As a measure to retaliate, the police have falsely implicated all the accused, it is submitted. It is prayed that the extra ordinary inherent Crl.M.C.No. 64 of 2009 2 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution against the petitioners. Their contention is that the allegations are false and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. At this stage and with the available inputs it would be hazardous for this Court to resolve the disputed facts and decide whether the allegations are true or false. I am not persuaded to agree that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners may be permitted to raise the contention before the learned Magistrate that they have not committed any offence and in these circumstances particulars of offences are not liable to be read over to them under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioners may be permitted to claim premature termination of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel further submits that if the learned Magistrate does not read over the charge Crl.M.C.No. 64 of 2009 3 under Sections 143 and 147 I.P.C., the petitioners may consider the question of pleading guilty also. 5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition can be disposed of granting the petitioners leave to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek dropping of proceedings under Section 258 r/w. 251 Cr.P.C. as explained in the decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617). The learned Magistrate must consider such prayer of the petitioners and specify to the petitioners the offences for which they have to stand trial. Once that is specified the petitioners can certainly take a decision whether they can or should plead guilty or not. 6. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm