IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1078 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.1067/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KOLENCHERRY] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- FR.JOHN PUTHURAN, S/O.JACOB, AGED 49 YEARS, MANAGER, ST.THOMAS PUBLIC SCHOOL, KODATHI KARA, (PO) MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PUTHURAN HOUSE, KODATHIKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.VALSALAN, SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN, SMT.THUSHARA.V. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MR.K.V.ELIYAS, AGED 41 YEARS, KARIMANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, (P.O) THIRUVANIYOOR (VIA) PUTHENKURIZ, ERNAKULAM DT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1078 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the Manager of a public school affiliated to the CBSE from 1992 onwards, where the first respondent was appointed as Vice Principal during 2008 and as Principal with effect from May, 2008. According to the petitioner, due to the misconduct of the first respondent he was suspended from the school and later his service was terminated after proper enquiry. The termination was confirmed by the Appellate Disciplinary Committee formulated by the CBSE. It is alleged that on account of that enemity first respondent filed Annexure-IV, complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery against petitioner alleging offences punishable under 341, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure-IV, complaint and Annexure-V, summons issued to the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that no offence as alleged is made out. According to learned counsel, after termination of service of the first respondent, he had no business to be in the premises of school and if at all he was prevented from entering the compound, that Crl.M.C.No.1078 of 2010 -: 2 :- does not amount to any offence under Sec.341 of the IPC. So far as offences punishable under Secs.190 and 200 of the IPC are concerned, it is contended that even the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any such offence. It is pointed out that in Annexure-V, summons offences mentioned are under Secs.190 and 200 of the IPC. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. If according to the petitioner, allegation in the complaint do not make out a case, it is open to the petitioner to plead discharge in the trial court at appropriate stage (if that stage is not over). So far as Annexure-V is concerned, mention of Sections 190 and 200 of the IPC can only be a mistake committed by the official who prepared the summons in that the provision for taking cognizance under Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) and for filing private complaint under Sec.190 of that Code were mentioned. I do not find reason to quash the proceeding. 3. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to plead discharge (if that stage is not over) in absentia, appearing through counsel. This criminal miscellaneous case is closed with the above observation. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge