IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1329 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.410/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- RAVIKUMAR, S/O.K.KUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, GANDHI SEVA SADAN. P.O., PERUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUNGARAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1329 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.410 of 2003 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Learned Magistrate took cognizance on a final report submitted by the Puthunagaram Police in Crime No.210 of 2002 on a complaint filed by the Secretary of Peruvamba Service Co-operative Bank (for short, “the bank”) alleging that on 09.10.2002 at about 12.15 p.m. about 15 persons led by one M.A. Chendamarakshan ( I am told that he is no more) got into his room in the bank, criminally intimidated him and obstructed him from discharging his official duty for about an hour. They also threatened to kill him in case he did not collect paddy of the said Chendmarakshan. The Police after investigation submitted a final report arraying petitioner as the second accused in the case. That proceeding is sought to be quashed in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure-A2, order passed by this Court on January 23, 2002 on C.M.P.No.61687 of 2001 in O.P.No.37687 of 2001. That Original Petition was filed by the National Farmers Protection Committee (for short, “the committee”) of which petitioner was the then Chairman for a direction to the authorities to collect paddy from farmers as per the Government Order. By Annexure-A2, order this Court directed the Joint Crl.M.C.No.1329/2011 2 Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Palakkad (under whom the bank comes) to take effective and appropriate steps to implement the Government Order immediately. Pursuant to Annexure-A2, order the Joint Registrar issued Annexure-A3, order directing the societies/banks under him to comply with the Government Order and in tune with Annexure-A2, order of this Court. Later, complaining that the bank did not comply with Annexure-A2, order the committee preferred C.C.C.No.1117 of 2002 in this Court which resulted in Annexure-A6, judgment dated March 17, 2003. This Court did not accept explanation offered by the bank and other alleged contemnours. But this Court though reluctantly did not proceed with the contempt proceeding and permitted the committee to pursue their claim for damages. Contempt proceeding was closed making the bank and others liable to pay cost to the committee. It is while so, according to the petitioner, the Secretary of bank gave a complaint to the Puthunagaram Police as aforesaid. Learned counsel has submitted that first accused and others including petitioner moved Crl.M.C.No.1047 of 2004 to quash proceeding in C.C.No.410 of 2003. This Court passed Annexure-A7, order on on August 2, 2006 recording the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that he would get instruction whether the case itself could be withdrawn (under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - for short, “the Code”). Learned Public Prosecution was granted time to get instruction. That Criminal Miscellaneous Case was disposed of by Annexure-A8, order dated August 16, 2007. On that day learned Public Prosecutor submitted that until then he did not get instruction whether the case against petitioners (in that Criminal Miscellaneous Case) would be Crl.M.C.No.1329/2011 3 withdrawn or not. This Court observed that the final report produced in the case did not contain the charge portion and hence it is not possible to make out whether offences under Sections 143, 147, 452 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the IPC have been made out. In the circumstances without prejudice to the right of petitioners to move fresh petition Crl.M.C.No.1047 of 2004 was dismissed. 2. Petitioner/second accused has again moved this Court with the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the proceeding. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that the first accused (who since then expired) was a member of the bank and hence entitled to enter the bank. Petitioner then was chairman of the committee and in connection with carrying out the Government Order was entitled to enter the bank, if at all he has done so. The other persons included in the case were members of the committee and their coming together to the bank to press their demand cannot be described as unlawful assembly. It is also submitted that charge under Section 506(i) of the IPC cannot stand. Learned counsel pointed out that inspite of lapse of so many time, Government have not decided whether the case should be withdrawn under Section 321 of the Code. Learned Public Prosecutor who represents the State Government has submitted that no instruction has been given to him as to the proposal if any to withdraw the proceeding. Crl.M.C.No.1329/2011 4 3. It is open to the Government to give necessary instruction if any to the Law Officer in charge of the case to move the trial court for withdrawal of the case. Having regard to Annexure-A2, order which I have referred to above, it was appropriate that the Government considered the question and gave necessary instruction in the matter if at all the Government thought that the case could be withdrawn. This Court cannot issue any direction whether the Government would move in that line. But fact remained that suggestion given by this Court in Annexure-A7, order stands and the Government ought to have considered that matter having regard to the various aspects of the matter. 4. Coming to the question whether the proceeding is to be quashed, that stands on a different pedestal. I am not inclined to think that at this stage this Court should quash the proceeding final report having been filed in the year 2003 and the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance also on that report. I therefore, do not express any opinion on the contentions raised by petitioner on the merit of the case. 5. In the light of what I have observed I am inclined to direct that the learned Magistrate shall keep the proceeding in C.C.No.410 of 2003 in abeyance for some time so that it is open to the Government to consider whether it should move in accordance with Section 321 of the Code in view of Annexure- A7, order passed by this Court. It is open to the petitioner or any of the accused also to move the Government in that line. But, I make it clear that it is not as if this Court is giving any direction to the Government in what way it should act. Crl.M.C.No.1329/2011 5 Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following line: Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur is directed to keep further proceeding in C.C.No.410 of 2003 for a period of three months so that in the meantime, it is open to the Government to consider whether it should act as provided under Section 321 of the Code. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks