IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1785 of 2007(S) -------------------------- CC.1010/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: -------------------------- SAIND SIMON @ BYJU, S/O.SAMBAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S.K.HOUSE, KRISHNAPURAM, PERUNGUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1785 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the 6th accused in Crime No.38 of 2003 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148 and 332 read with 149 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure A2 final report and the proceedings in C.C.No.1010/2003 pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal. 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- Even in the FIR the allegation is that the named accused numbers 1 to 5 and six identifiable persons attacked the eleven Police Officers. The petitioner's name does not figure in the FIR and he was subsequently arrested and arrayed as the 6th accused. None of the prosecution witnesses claims to have given any of the identifying features of A6. None of the prosecution witnesses has a claim that A6 was known to him previously. No test identification parade was conducted. It is difficult to believe that the eleven Police Officers, who were at the scene of crime Crl.M.C.No. 1785 of 2007 2 on duty in a temple festival could not apprehend any of the accused persons. There were no injuries on any of the alleged assailants. 3. All the aforementioned circumstances relied on by the petitioner cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C much before the commencement of the trial. The petitioner can very well take advantage of the aforementioned circumstances during the trial of the case. If, as a matter of fact, none of the prosecution witnesses had any previous acquittance with the petitioner and they are going to identify the petitioner for the first time in the court, that is definitely a circumstance which may come in favour of the petitioner. But even before commencement of trial this Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot quash the final report or the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. The absence of injuries on the accused persons also is not a circumstance relevant to be considered at this stage of the proceedings. Since the charge was framed long ago and the trial of the case is presently going on, the remedy of the petitioner is to try for an acquittal. His prayer to quash the Crl.M.C.No. 1785 of 2007 3 final report and the proceedings before the trial court cannot be granted at this stage. This Crl.M.C is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all the aforementioned contentions before the court below and seek an acquittal. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj