IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 889 of 2011() ------------------------ ST.300/2002 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUDEVAN, S/O.SIVAPRASAD, ISWARYA HOUSE, SRIRAGAM ROAD, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 011. 3. ANILKUMAR ALIAS ASOKAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, NEAR ASAN MEMORIAL, KAIKKARA.P.O., PIN-695 307. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J.MOHAMMAD ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.889 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.176 of 2002 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and S.T.No.300 of 2002 of the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Secs.341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. That case is registered on a private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). On the information given by petitioner, the same police registered Crime No.25 of 2002 against the 3rd respondent for offence punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 506(1) of the IPC and a final report has been submitted following which learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate took Crl.M.C. No.889 of 2011 -: 2 :- cognizance and filed S.T.No.236 of 2002 against the 3rd respondent. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him alleging that S.T.No.300 of 2002 is registered as a counter blast for the case registered against the 3rd respondent and pending before the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned counsel contended that Crime No.25 of 2002 is registered on the information given by the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. So far as Crime No.176 of 2002 and S.T.No.300 of 2002 are concerned, the case is that on 14.1.2002 at about 5 PM petitioner on account of enimity to the 3rd respondent (CW1), wrongfully restrained and assaulted him. Motive alleged is that 3rd respondent intervened in a quarrel between petitioner and CW2 in that case. In Crime No.25 of 2002 (S.T.No.236 of 2002), case is that on 14.1.2002 at about 4.45 PM near Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram while petitioner and Advocate Dharmarajan were talking the 3rd respondent Crl.M.C. No.889 of 2011 -: 3 :- assaulted them. 4. It is seen from the records in Crime No.176 of 2002 (S.T.No.300 of 2002) that Cws.1 to 3 are cited to prove the alleged incident. CW5, Medical Officer is said to have been examined the 3rd respondent/CW1 on 15.1.2002 at about 11 AM and noticed small abrasion on 3rd respondent who had complaint of headache and pain on the left shoulder. He gave the history that on 14.1.2002 at about 5PM he was assaulted by 2-3 persons. 5. Now there are two cases pending between the parties. Merely for the reason that Crime No.25 of 2002 was registered on the information given from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. I am not inclined to think that allegation in Crime No.176 of 2002 is not correct and hence final report and proceeding in S.T.No.300 of 2002 are to be quashed. There is difference in the time of alleged occurrence in both the cases. It is for the trial court to decide whether charge in S.T.No.300 of 2002 is correct or not. Crl.M.C. No.889 of 2011 -: 4 :- Request to quash proceeding cannot in the circumstances be allowed. 6. It is pointed out that in S.T.No.300 of 2002 case was registered on the strength of a private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent and forwarded to the police for investigation. May be, the police registered the case on the complaint filed in court and forwarded to the police. That does not mean that the complaint is not true. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, request to quash proceeding cannot be allowed. Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate defence before the trial court. The trial court shall proceed in the matter untrammelled by any observation or finding contained in this order. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt