IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 265 of 2004() ------------------------ CC.143/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHANGANASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------- T.V.ULAHANNAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX M. ARAYATH SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SMT.SHAIMA .U. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.265 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd January, 2008. O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.143/2003 on the file of Magistrate Court. 2. The first accused in the above case was charge sheeted for offences under Sections 323, 452, 341, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident allegedly occurred on 7.9.2002 and the charge was laid on the basis of complaint made by CW1 a neighbour, on 9.9.2002. 3. Heard. According to the petitioner the complaint is a false one. This is an off-shoot of a boundary dispute. The petitioner had purchased certain properties on the northern side of CW1's property. The properties were not properly demarcated and hence dispute arose. On 14.8.2002, the Taluk Surveyor was approached and plots were measured, after proper notice. Even though CW1 declined to accept notice, Taluk Surveyor completed survey on 27.8.2002 and survey stones were laid on all boundaries. CW1 and his men removed the boundary stones on the southern boundary. Crl.M.C. No.265/04 2 4. The petitioner hence moved the respondent Police and also this Court. The petitioner is employed in United States of America and knowing fully well that he had to go abroad CW1 made a false complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Vakathanam, making false allegations. The proceedings are initiated only as weapons of annoyance, harassment and persecution, it is argued. If the proceedings are allowed to continue it will amount to abuse of process of law and it will result in great injustice, it is contended. 5. Heard. On going through the records produced along with the petition, I find that a complaint was filed making specific allegations against the petitioner and after investigation, a charge sheet was also laid against the petitioner alleging various offences. But, the petitioner now raise a contention in respect of the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint are false and baseless. It is well settled that the falsity of complaint or the truth in the accused's case cannot be decided in a proceedings under Section 482 Crl.M.C. No.265/04 3 Cr.P.C. 6. This court is expected to go through the allegations made in the complaint as such and if it is found that those allegations prima facie make out an offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed. I find that there is absolutely no ground to quash the proceedings, since the records, prima facie reveal offence against the petitioner. Whether it is true or not, can be decided by the trial court, at the appropriate stage. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. dvs