IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 487 of 2010(Q) ------------------------------------ CC.215/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ALI, (ACCUSED-1), S/O.ABU CHALIYAN, CHALIYAN HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ABU KALATHIL, (ACCUSED-2), KALATHIL HOUSE, KONNARAM, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU POST, MANNARCAUD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ULLATTIL NISSAR, S/O.ALAVI, ASST. SURGEON, GOVT. TALUK HOSPITAL, MANNARKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)No.487 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 22nd day of January,2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners, the accused in C.C.215/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings before the learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offences under sections 341, 447 and 353 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 29.3.2008 at 1 p.m. Petitioners trespassed in to the consultation room of the de facto complainant doctor while he was examining the patients due to the enemity on the unwillingness of the doctor to sign the medical reimbursement papers earlier submitted by the first petitioner, and first petitioner by force removed the articles which were on the table W.P.(C) 487/2010 2 and sat on the table and the second petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences. The case of the petitioners is that though the incident was on 29.3.2008, Ext.P1 the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate which was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, based on which Ext.P2 F.I.R was registered only on 20.4.2009 and the inordinate delay is itself sufficient to reject the case. Learned counsel argued that Ext.P2 F.I.R prepared by the Investigating Officer does not show the exact position when it was and dimension of the table and in such circumstances the Magistrate should not have been taken cognizance. Learned counsel also argued that the witness cited in support of the prosecution case are interested witnesses being employees of the doctor and therefore in any case when there is no chance of a successful prosecution the case is to be quashed. W.P.(C) 487/2010 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The prosecution case is that petitioners illegally trespassed into the consultation room and wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant doctor while he was examining the patients. The fact that complaint was submitted later by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings, as sought for. It is a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate while appreciating the evidence. So also when an incident happened inside the consultation room of the doctor either the employees of the doctor or his patients could ordinarily be the witnesses and on the ground that the witness sought to be examined are interested, the case cannot be quashed. It is for the Magistrate to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective considering all the relevant facts. Learned counsel also argued that based on Ext.P3 W.P.(C) 487/2010 4 manipulation alone the complaint was filed. It is also a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of evidence. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006