IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 142 of 2003(A) ------------------------- C.C. NO.153/01 OF JFCM II, HOSDURG --------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PALLIKKARA KUNHAMBU, AGED 42, S/O. LATE KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT KOOLAM ROAD, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION) 2. LAKSHMI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. PANAKOOL KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KALICHAMPOTHI, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION) BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. U.MANIKKAM, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. SANKARAN KOMARAM, RESIDING AT MUCHILOTTU, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION) 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3: RAVINDRAN, S/O. U. MANNIKAM, MUCHILOTTU, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.08.05 IN M.A. NO.9599/2005) R1 BY SR. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Shg A.K. BASHEER, J. ------------------------- CRL.M.C NO. 142 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009 ORDER ---------- The grievance of the Petitioners who are facing trial before the court below for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 447, 427, 324 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is that they have been implicated in the case without any basis and on some misunderstanding. 2. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the earlier complaint filed by the de facto complainant (now deceased) was referred by the police after investigation. The present complaint was filed by the de facto complainant thereafter on the basis of the very same allegations. The court below issued process to the petitioners without any application of mind. 3. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to certain averments in annexure A1 complaint which, according to her, will prima facie show that the alleged charge is wholly untenable. I do not propose to deal with the above contention at this stage in view of the order that I propose to pass. CRL.M.C NO. 142 OF 2003 2 4. It is on record that the de facto complainant who was initially impleaded in this case as respondent No.1 is no more. Of course the son of the deceased de facto complainant is now on the party array and he has appeared through learned Counsel. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides and having regard to the entire facts and circumstances I am of the view that this petition need not be kept pending on the file of this Court any more. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has very fairly submitted that an attempt will be made to sort out the issue especially in the light of the death of the de facto complainant. 5. In the above facts and circumstances Crl. M.C is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a plea for discharge before the court below. If such a request is made, the court below shall consider the request and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE pkk CRL.M.C NO. 142 OF 2003 3 pkk