IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 705 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.324/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- P.S.NATARAJAN,AGED 40 YRS, S/O.LATE P.V.SADASIVAN, 'SAUPARNIKA',PEOPLES ROAD, KATCHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SRI.E.T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): STATE/ INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT;REP; BY ITS SECRETARY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 705 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure A8 final report in C.C.324/08 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. A perusal of the petition and the documents would reveal that the Standing Committee Chairman of the Tanur Grama Panchayat had complained that a forged seal has been used and tickets had been issued to avoid entertainment tax and therefore the accused along with others have committed offences u/Ss. 465, 468 and 473 r/w S.34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends before me that at the relevant point of time of the alleged offence, that is, on 10.1.2008 he was not the licensee and it was one Abdu Rahiman who was the licensee. From Annexure A7 it is seen that the said person was a licensee from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. Subsequently from 1.4.2008 another person is running the show. So it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CRL.M.C. 705 OF 2009 -:2:- person who is conducting the cinema as a licensee is the person to be proceeded against and not the owner and therefore the proceedings have to be quashed. It has to be stated that there is an allegation in the charge sheet that the Manager with the present petitioner, with an intention to defeat the Panchayat, had made a false seal and had issued tickets attracting offences mentioned above. It is true that the involvement of this person has to be proved to proceed against him. It is a calendar case where a charge has to be framed. The petitioner herein can move the Court for discharge if materials are available and there is no legal defect in proceeding against him at this stage. Whether he is involved in the crime or not is a matter which may have to be decided with the entire materials. Therefore with liberty to file a petition for discharge the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-