IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3612 of 2007(B) ------------------------- CP.90/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR CRIME NO. 210/2006 of VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------- JYOTHIKUMAR, AGED 41, S/O. KUMARAN KANNATHISSERIL HOUSE, PEEDIKAPPARAMBIL NAGAR VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE. VADAKKENCHERY POLICE STATION). BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 3612 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.P. No. 90/2007 in crime No. 210/2006 of Vadakkencherry Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 5(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, seeks to quash the proceedings in Annexure D final report and all further proceedings in C.P.No. 90/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. 2. According to the petitioner, CW9 who was originally the 2nd accused in the case and who is the owner of the building in question, had given a statement falsely implicating the petitioner herein and based on the said statement he was deleted from the array of accused and instead the petitioner was substituted in his place. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that apart from the statement of CW9 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is no scrap of paper to show that the petitioner was the real culprit. CRL. M.C. NO. 3612/2007 : 2: 3. Even though this Court had issued a direction to the committal court against committing the case, by that time the case was already committed to the court of Session, Palakkad and the case records were forwarded to the Sessions Court. Now that case has been committed to the court of Session, the petitioner can plead for a discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C, in case he is able to make out from the materials produced from the side of the prosecution itself that there is no ground to proceed against the petitioner. Reserving this right of the petitioner this M.C. is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 3612/2007 : 3: