IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 287 of 2010() ------------------------ CRIME NO.603/2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSD 1-3: ------------------------------------- 1. PATHEESH.P.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, POTTAMPLACKAL HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 2. VISHNU M.R., MADATHIVELI HOUSE, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 3. VIJEESH, S/O.VISWANATHAN, VASANTHA NIVAS, VALAVAYAL P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------ 1. SUDHEER THANKAPPAN, KALINGAM HOUSE, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R1 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R1 SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.432/2010 IN CRL.M.C.NO.287/2010 DISMISSED. 27.7.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.287 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners, three in number, are proceeded for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 147, 341, 395, 427, 452, 465 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.603 of 2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station on the basis of a complaint presented by the de facto complainant (1st respondent herein) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam and that complaint referred to for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The gist of the allegation imputed against the petitioners is that they, along with some other persons, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed upon the residential building of the de facto complainant (1st respondent) and keeping him under duress, obtained from him CRL.M.C.287/10 2 some signed blank documents and stole away his motor car, a mobile phone, laptop etc. The crime is now under investigation, and, at this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the crime, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.(C). 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, 1st respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Inviting my attention to the compliant filed leading to the registration of the crime, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant (1st respondent) has no definite case even with respect to the date of occurrence as the complaint shows two different dates when the alleged occurrence took place. In fact, there was a sale of a motor vehicle by the complainant in favour of the 1st petitioner long before the complaint and the complaint was filed after the 1st petitioner had approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for orders/directions to the de facto complainant to handover the registration certificates and other records of the vehicle, is the submission of the counsel. A copy CRL.M.C.287/10 3 of the complaint filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has been produced with the petition as Annexure E. Copy of the sale agreement over the vehicle alleged to have been entered by the de facto complainant with the 1st petitioner is produced as Anenxure C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant (1st respondent) had filed a complaint a few months ago before the Thrissur Police Station alleging that his suitcase containing a laptop, the original registration certificates of the motor vehicle etc. had been stolen at the Thrissur bus stand. That complaint itself falsifies the version narrated by the de facto complainant in Annexure A that the petitioners with some others removed his vehicle from the residential compound and left the place with the original records of that vehicle, is the submission of the counsel. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the investigation of the crime has now been stalled by the interim order obtained by the petitioners in the present case, and only a full fledged investigation would disclose the veracity of the complaint under Annexure A. CRL.M.C.287/10 4 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides with reference to the annexures produced with the petition, I find it is to early to sit in judgment on the complaint, Annexure A, filed by the de facto complainant, which is being investigated by the Police. Some discrepancies with respect to the date of occurrence by itself cannot be given unmerited consideration to throw out a complaint at the threshold. The learned Magistrate, exercising his jurisdiction, found merit in the complaint to the extent that it is a matter to be investigated by the Police and a report be presented before the court after such investigation. Whatever be the defenses available to the petitioners, they can present their case thereof before the investigating agency, in case, on the materials placed, such agency finds their interrogation is essential for a fair investigation of the crime. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the complaint nor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners impeaching the merit of the complaint presented by the 1st respondent. All the same, I find, on the facts presented and the submissions made, it cannot CRL.M.C.287/10 5 be stated that the complaint filed by the petitioners is wholly meritless warranting interference and quashing of the same by this Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This petition is therefore, dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.287/10 6