IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1143 of 2010() ------------------------- CP.3/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY (CP 33/2008) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, VILLANICKAL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY. 2. SREENIVASAN NAIR,S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PARAPALLIL VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 3. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, ONATHAPPAN KUNNEL VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 4. SUSEELA PANICKER, EDACHERIYATHU VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 5. BABU, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MULLOOR VEETTIL, URALIJUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY. 6. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, THOTTUMPURATHU VEETTIL,URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY. 7. THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, PENDANATHU VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 8. KUTTAN S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,PENMADANATHU VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJiRAPALLY. kss ..2/- ...2... CRMC.NO.1143/2010 9. UNNI,S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, MADAPATTU VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 10. MOHANAN,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NIAR, MADAPALLIKUNNEL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. 11. RAVI,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VETTIKATTU, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE KANJIRAPALLY. BY ADVS. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, MR.MANU TOM. RESPONDENT(S): STATE &COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SALIN C.NARAYANAN,S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, CHORIYANMAKKAL VEETTIL, URALIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TLAUK,PRESIDENT OF SAMPOORNA SWADESHI GRAMA VIKASANA DHARMA SANGHAM,49/5 ELIKKULAM PANCHAYAT,ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1143 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.P.3/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken by Annexure A order. By Annexure A order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 324, 341, 395, 447, 144 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on a protest complaint filed by the second respondent. When learned Magistrate has taken cognizance earlier, petitioners challenged it before this court in Crl.M.C.77/2009. By Annexure B order Crmc 1143/10 2 cognizance taken was quashed finding that learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the final report submitted by the police after investigation. Complaint was sent back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal after considering the final report. Complainant was also permitted to adduce further evidence. It is thereafter sworn statements of two more witnesses were recorded and by Annexure A order cognizance was taken. 2. Order is challenged on the ground that learned Magistrate has not conducted proper enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Senior counsel argued that in spite of the direction in Annexure B order, learned Magistrate has not considered the complaint in the proper perspective and when there is no material in support of the occurrence, cognizance should Crmc 1143/10 3 not have been taken mechanically. 3. On going through Annexure A order, I cannot agree with the submissions. Annexure A order shows that sworn statements of Cws.2 to 5 were recorded and they are occurrence witnesses and they supported the sworn statement of the complainant. Order shows that learned Magistrate has taken all the relevant facts into consideration and prima facie being satisfied, had taken cognizance of the offences. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A order. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions before the trial court. Being a committal case Magistrate is bound to record the statements of all the witnesses to be examined in the sessions case. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.