IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 996 of 2011() ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.159/2011 OF THE MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION) ------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- GEORGE MANOJ P.T., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PADMADAN HOUSE, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KUM.D.MINI RAJAN, SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. R & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.996 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.159 of 2011 of Mulavukad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case against petitioner is that on 30.01.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. himself and three others trespassed into the SWTD-S4 boat on which defacto complainant was the driver, assaulted him, used obscene words and obstructed him from discharging his official duty. Case was registered on 01.02.2011. According to the petitioner, he was taking some servicing and retired army personnel with their families for a picnic in his tourist boat and at the relevant time, his boat had anchored at Kuravancotta boat jetty so that picnickers could alight from that boat. At that time the service boat, SWTD – S4 driven by the defacto complainant came there and sounded horn to inform petitioner to remove his boat. It took some time for picnickers in the tourist boat to alight. In the meantime the defacto complainant abused petitioner in the presence of passengers in the tourist boat. There was a scuffle between the defacto complainant and petitioner in which the defacto complainant is said to have assaulted petitioner. In spite of all that, the defacto complainant gave a complaint and a case was registered against petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that before the case was registered Police did not conduct any enquiry and none of the passengers in the tourist Boat were questioned. Learned Crl.MC No.996/2011 2 counsel complained that on account of registration of the case, petitioner is not able to ply his boat. Learned counsel prayed that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The law was set in motion on 01.02.2011 by the defacto complainant giving a complaint regarding the alleged incident as it occurred according to him. Police has only registered a case and the matter is being investigated. Question whether the incident occurred as contended by the defacto complainant or it occurred as pleaded by the petitioner is a matter which the Investigating Officer has to look into while investigating the case by questioning all persons who, according to him are acquainted with the facts of the case There is no reason why I should interfere with the registration of the case and quash the proceeding. Resultantly this petition is closed with the observation that Police shall look into the matter from the angle pleaded by the petitioner also and investigate the case as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks