IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4756 of 2010() ------------------------- (CC.614/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSEED ------------------------------------- 1. SUGUNAN, AGED 55, S/O.GOPALAN, PUTHENKARI HOUSE, KULESEKHARAMANGALAM.P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. DILEEP, AGED 27, S/O.KAMALAKSHAN, ARAYASETHU HOUSE, CHEMBU.P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.G.RAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4756 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.614/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 17 read with Section 20, 21, and 23 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on Annexure-B final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Poochackal Police Station under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that as provided under Section 25 of the Act, learned Magistrate could have taken Crmc 4756/10 2 cognizance only on a complaint filed by an officer authorized under the Act and not on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the this Court in Ismail v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706 (DB)) cognizance could have been taken only on a complaint filed by an authorised officer as provided under Section 25 of the Act and not on a final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken in C.C.614/2010 on the file of Judicial First Crmc 4756/10 3 Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not prevent the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on such a complaint. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.