IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3775 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.1387/2009 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, CHERTHALA CRIME NO. 245/09 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ......................................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. ANEESH, AGED 29, S/O. ASHOKAN, ANOOP BHAVAN, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALLY.P.O. CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688566. 2. BOSE.P.L, AGED 35, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALY.P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688566. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA TALUK. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3775 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 14th day of September,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1387/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala taken cognizance for the offences under section 23 read with section 20 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on Annexure A2 final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Poochakkal Police Station. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that as held by this Court in Ismail v. State of Kerala (2010(3) KLT 706) and Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 394), cognizance can only be taken on a complaint filed by the officer authorised under the Act as provided Crl.M.C.3775/2010 2 under section 25 of the Act and not on a final report submitted under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A2 final report shows that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance not on a complaint submitted by an officer authorised under the Act as provided under section 25 of the Act but on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As held by this Court in Ismail's case (supra) and Abdul Azeez case (supra), cognizance taken on the final report filed under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken in C.C.1387/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala on Annexure A2 final report is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not bar the right of Crl.M.C.3775/2010 3 the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006