IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 4478 OF 2010() ---------------------------------------- CC.51/2010 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABY, S/O.MOOSA, PULLANTHIKUZHAMBIL HOUSE, RANDARKKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4478 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.51 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha arising from Crime No.2329 of 2009 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. He is to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 353, 506(i), 294(b) and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Prosecution case is that on 16.12.2009 at about 2 p.m. petitioner caused obstruction to the official duty of CWs 1 and 2, Police Officials on duty at the place of occurrence, used obscene words at them, tried to assault, criminally intimidated them with death, violated the order of police protection granted by this Court and thereby committed the said offences. Petitioner has a different case – there was dispute between his father and the neighbour - Kuttappan regarding boundary of property, the said Kuttappan permitted the telecom authorities to erect mobile tower on the boundary of the property encroaching into the property of the father of petitioner, regarding which Writ Petitions were filed in this Court and this Court by Annexure-2, judgment dated 12.10.2009 has stated that if there is no interdiction from any competent forum and in case construction is made in accordance with the permit, police could give protection for erection of tower. It is the case of petitioner that pursuant to the said judgment his father approached the civil court and obtained an interim order of stay which was conveyed to the police. But inspite of that, the police had given Crl.M.C.No.4478/2010 2 protection for installation of tower which itself was in violation of Annexure-2, judgment of this Court. To avoid contempt proceedings, police has registered a false case against petitioner, it is contended. 2. Though various contentions are raised in this petition including that in the above circumstance no offence under Section 353 of the Code is made out, in the absence of specifically stating the words allegedly used by petitioner against CWs 1 and 2 in the final report the charge under Section 294(b) of the Code cannot stand and that based on a police report the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of the Code, learned counsel after arguing the matter for some time has sought permission to withdraw this petition without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise appropriate plea in the trial court at the appropriate stage. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor I am inclined to grant permission sought for. Resultantly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take all appropriate pleas and contentions before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks