IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4247 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- [SC.NO.87/2010 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT,(ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. ANILKUMAR, AGED 32, S/O.PRAKASH, EETTICKAL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SUMESH, AGED 32, S/O.MOHANAN, THOPPIL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. BIJU, AGED 34, METTUPPURAM HOUSE, NERCHAPPARA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. ANISH, S/O.MOHANAN, THOPPIL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. XAVIER @ BABYCHEN, AGED 44, PUTHUPARAMBIL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 6. SUNDARESAN, AGED 27, SREENIPURAM COLONY, KANAKAPPALAM. 7. BABU.K.G, AGED 40, KUNNEL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 8. BIVIN, S/O.BABU.K.G, KUNNEL, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR, SMT.PRIYA. H. CRL.M.C. NO.4247/2010-E: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4247 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in S.C.86 & 87 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam. It was under Annxure A1 final report, S.C.86/2010 was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 143, 148, 452, 324, 323, 427 and 435 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. It was later committed to the Sessions Court as S.C.87/2010. In both the cases the accused are the same. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken in the two cases contending that in respect of the same incident cognizance could not have been taken twice as petitioners cannot be tried twice and therefore the proceedings are to be quashed. Crl.M.C.4247/2010 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings. Eventhough the injured de facto complainant has a case that offences under sections 307 and 308 of Indian Penal Code were also committed by the accused, in Annexure A1 final report, after investigation police did not laid charge for those offences but only for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 452,435,324 and 427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances the aggrieved de facto complainant filed Annexure A2 complaint, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Though the learned counsel argued that Annexure A2 complaint was filed before the final report was filed, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on Annexure A2 only subsequently. In such circumstances, there is no illegality as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for Crl.M.C.4247/2010 3 the petitioners. 4. The question then is whether the two cases are to be clubbed and tried or are separately to be tried. It is for the Sessions Judge to try the petitioner in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan (AIR 1980 SC 1780), Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1985 SC 404) and Balbir v. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2000 SC 11). Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006