IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3179 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.459/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: N.MADHAVA PANICKER, S/O. NARAYANA PANICKER, VALLATTIL VEEDU, CHUNAKKARA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (F.I.R. NO.262 /07 OF THE KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION). 2. CHANDRIKA, W/O. PARAMESWARAN PANICKER, VELLATTIL HOUSE, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUM MURI, ALAPPUZHA DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3179 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.459/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mavelikara, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 354, 506(ii), 323 and 427 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-2 final report and the cognizance taken contending that it is only a civil dispute. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that wife of the petitioner had instituted O.S.No.182/1995 against the husband of the second respondent, the defacto complainant, for vacating the building and the wife of the petitioner is the owner in possession of the property as per registered sale deed 1345/1992, executed by the father of the petitioner and at that time, petitioner and his wife were residing at Kollam and to look after the aged father of the petitioner, CRMC 3179/09 2 they permitted the husband of the second respondent to reside in the building and now, petitioner and family are residing in the said property and wife of the petitioner demanded the husband of the second respondent to vacate the building and it was resisted by the second respondent and the suit was decreed in favour of the wife of the petitioner and the appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed, evidenced by Annexure-3 judgment and second respondent, thereafter, with the aid of the local ruling party, threatened the petitioner that he and his family would be forcibly evicted and hence Anenxure-5 complaint was preferred before the Chief Minister and Home Minister and because of the enmity and utilising the influence of the ruling party, the case is foisted and therefore, it is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure-2 final report, it cannot be said that ingredients of the offences are not made out. The question whether in view of the decision of the civil CRMC 3179/09 3 court second respondent would claim any right are matters to be decided by the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. I find no justifiable reason to quash the final report or the cognizance taken and terminate the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. Learned counsel then submitted that though summons was issued to the second respondent, he is not appearing before the court. If that be so, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara is to dispose C.C.No.459/2008 expeditiously and see that the case is not protracted. Petition is disposed. 23rd October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv