IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4364 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.100/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- REJI THAMPY, S.L.COTTAGE, MANALIVILA, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. JUSTUS, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, PULAVANNIYURKONAM, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4364 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 O R D E R About an incident which took place on the night of 28.1.2003, allegations and counter allegations are raised by the rival contestants. Annex.I F.I.R. was registered at the instance of the petitioner herein. Investigation was conducted. Final report has already been filed raising allegations against the accused persons therein. 2. At the instance of the accused persons in Annex.I, Annex.II F.I.R. has also been registered. Investigation was conducted into that crime. The petitioner herein is the first accused in that crime. After completion of the investigation, a negative final report was filed. The defacto complainant filed a protest complaint raising objections against the investigation by the police. On that complaint, after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, cognizance has already been taken for offences punishable, inter alia, under Crl.M.C.No. 4364 of 2008 2 Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii), I.P.C. and the petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused. The matter had reached the Lok Ayuktha also. The Dy.S.P. of Lok Ayuktha conducted an enquiry. In that enquiry he has also come to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner herein are false. 3. According to the petitioner, in these circumstances, cognizance taken in the prosecution against him on the basis of the private complaint is totally unjustified. He prays that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him initiated on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein. 4. As already indicated, allegations and counter allegations are raised about an admitted incident. Of course, the police on investigation and the Dy.S.P. of Lok Ayuktha after his enquiry have come to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner herein are not justified. But that by itself is not, according to me, a sufficient justification to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by Crl.M.C.No. 4364 of 2008 3 the first respondent herein. The counsel strenuously highlights the alleged incongruities in the version of the first respondent in the complaint filed by him. Counsel advances hair splitting arguments about the time and registration of the F.I.R., alleged time of occurrence shown in the two F.I.Rs. as also the incongruent description about the weapon used in the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and the co-accused etc. 5. I must alertly remind myself that this is not the stage at which the materials collected are to be weighed in golden scales. That exercise will have to be undertaken by the learned Magistrate at appropriate later stages. I take note of the fact that allegations and counter allegations have been raised by the rival contestants and that on broad circumstances the allegations raised against the petitioner do also deserve to be proceeded against. 6. I shall carefully avoid any more detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data placed before court. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree Crl.M.C.No. 4364 of 2008 4 that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do at any rate deserve to be invoked to quash the prosecution against the petitioner. 7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate at the stage of Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. to claim discharge or to claim acquittal at later stages. (R. BASANT) Judge tm