IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1116 of 2011() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------- K.S.SANJEEV, S/O. SUSEELAN, MANAGING PARTNER, KONCHERRY COIR FACTORY, MAYITHARA.P.O., CHERTHALA(KONCHERRY HOUSE, CHERTHALA.P.O.) BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARTHINKAL POLICE STATION, ARTHINKAL.P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. K.S. SUBHASH, S/O. SUSSELAN, SREEVALSOM,S.N.PURAM.P.O., CHERTHALA. 4. PRAKASHAN.A.D., AZHEEKKAL HOUSE, CHENNAVELI, ARTHINKAL.P.O.,CHERTHALA. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN.P.K., PATTATHUVELI, S.L.PURAM.P.O., CHERTHALA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1116 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.44 of 2008 of Arthinkal Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.406, 420 and 468 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner filed Annexure-A, complaint. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation. Police registered Crime No.44 of 2008 and after investigation submitted refer report stating that the allegations are false. Notice of the refer report was given to the petitioner and he appeared in the court below through counsel on 31.08.2010. He requested time for filing objection (protest complaint). On 20.10.2010 learned Magistrate, observing that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner but, no objection was filed accepted the refer report. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner was out of station for two months he could not file objection on time. Stating that fact, request was made but learned Magistrate did not allow the request for further time. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to file objection. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.M.C.No.1116 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen that petitioner appeared pursuant to the notice served on him based on the refer report on 31.08.2010. The case was posted on 25.09.2010 and thereafter to 20.10.2010. petitioner requested time to file objection. It is stated that on account of petitioner being out of station he could not file objection on time. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Since the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance, notice to respondent Nos.3 to 5 is not required and is dispensed with. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala in Crime No.44 of 2008 of the Arthinkal Police Station is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Magistrate for fresh consideration. Petitioner shall file his objection (protest complaint) if any to the refer report within three weeks from this day. Thereon learned Magistrate shall consider the complaint as provided under law and pass appropriate orders. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-