IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2004(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------- KUMARI VARMA, AGED 70 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE SRI.P.R. RAMAVARMA RAJA, ALAKODE HOUSE, ALAKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.NISSAR SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.4580/04 IN CRL.M.C.994/04 DISMISSED 13.6.08 SD/- (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.994 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the 1st accused in C.C.Nos.325, 334, 335 and 327 of 2003 and S.T.C.No.4260/03 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba pending against him and registered for the offences punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(i) and 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 read with Section 3 and 4 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1969. 2. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexures I to V, that is, the proceedings initiated against them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba as per the complaint filed by the Kerala Forest Officials. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is alleged in this petition that the petitioner is the legal heir and the only child of late P.R.Ramavarma Raja, who CRL.M.C.No.994/04 -2- filed O.A.No.90/79 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad for a declaration that 348 acres of cardamom plantation in R.S.No.292/1A does not vest with the Government being a plantation and exempted under the Act. That O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal against which M.F.A.No.658/90 was filed before this Court. As per judgment dated 16.1.1991, this Court remanded the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as per Annexure VI order. Pursuant to the remand, the Tribunal considered the matter afresh and as per order dated 16.10.1995, disposed of the petition which was challenged by the father of the petitioner by filing M.F.A.No.595/96 before this Court. The State has also preferred M.F.A.No.177/97. M.F.A.No.595/96 was found against the petitioner's father. Subsequently, the matter has been taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which found against the petitioner herein as represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Pending those proceedings. the above cases, that is, Annexures I to V, has been lodged against the petitioner herein and three other accused which is sought to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. On a perusal of Annexures I to V., that is C.C.Nos.325, 334, 335 and 327 of 2003 and S.T.C.No.4260/03, it is revealed that all CRL.M.C.No.994/04 -3- those proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein and other accused for offences punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(i) and 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 read with Section 3 and 4 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1969 and the matter is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba. The representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a widow aged 74 years and is suffering from various ailments and that if the proceedings are permitted to be proceeded with against the petitioner, it will cause serious prejudice and difficulties to the petitioner cannot be taken as sufficient ground to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner herein before the competent Magistrate Court. 6. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot make an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offences and initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein and other accused as revealed from Annexures I to V. I find no circumstance to quash the above proceedings as alleged in this petition. Therefore, CRL.M.C.No.994/04 -4- this Court cannot exercise the inherent power envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in this matter. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn