IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2187 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP.4285/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN, 17 A, MEENAKSHIPURAM 4TH STREET, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU. 2. K.M.SHREE NAREENDRAPRANAM, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SRI.PRAMJI PAUL VAZHAPPILLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, PAZHAMUCKIL HOUSE, EDAKALATHUR, KECHERRY, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2187 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 5th day of October,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.P.109/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the case has been foisted and when there is no solid evidence to prove the case and chance of a successful prosecution is bleak it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Under Annexure 2 order learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Eventhough learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance, even the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses are not made available. The question whether there is evidence Crl.M.C.2187/2009 2 to convict the petitioners can only be decided at the time of trial and not at this stage. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions before the concerned court, while framing charge and are also entitled to file an application for discharge and raise all the contentions raised herein at that stage. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners then submitted that a direction may be issued to the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail. It is for the petitioners to surrender and apply for bail. When an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that the Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006