IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3760 of 2007() ------------------------- ST.1333/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED; ---------------------------------------------- MOHAN BOSE, S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, PRIYADARSHINI FOOD PRODUCTS, PARIYARAM, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.K.SURENDRAN, BIJU BHAVAN, MUNDANADU KARA, KALLARA KADAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM . BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3760 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the 1st accused in S.T.No.1333/07 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II(Mobile), Kottayam seeks to quash Annexure1 complaint and all further proceedings pursuant to the same. 2. The learned Magistrate as per Annexure 8 order has now taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 465 read with 34 IPC. Initially, the learned Magistrate had declined to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of Annexure 1- complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant had preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, Kottayam and the Sessions Court as per Annexure 7 order dated 7.10.06 in Cr.R.P.32/2006 allowed the revision and had remanded the matter back to the trial court. It was thereafter that the trial court passed Annexure 8 order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registering the case as S.T.No.1333/07. Crl.M.C. No. 3760 of 2007 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the complaint will show that offences under Section 415 and 465 are not at all made out. That is a matter on which the petitioner can very well address the trial court at the time of framing charge or reading out the particulars of the offence. The petitioner is given an opportunity to address the trial court with regard to the contentions raised in this petition, before the charge is framed or the particulars of the offence are read out to the petitioner. Reserving this opportunity, this petition is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj