IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4733 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.1791/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THRISSUR CRIME NO.327/2008 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- P.A.HARIDASAN,HARINANDANAM HOUSE, MAHADEVA APPARTMENTS,POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.UMA DEVI,SABANI,NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, POOKUNNAM,THRISSUR,PIN-685601. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4733 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.1791 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur arising from the final report in Crime No.327 of 2008 of Thrissur Town West Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was based on a complaint (Annexure-AI) preferred by respondent No.2, manager of Marikkar Motors, Thrissur alleging that petitioner came to the office of respondent No.2 (allegedly on 30.07.2008) and introduced himself as Circle Inspector of Police, made obscene calls and sent obscene SMS to the mobile phone of respondent No.2. Police after investigation submitted Annexure-AIII, final report. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings claiming that on 30.07.2008 he was on duty in his office as revealed by Annexures-AV to AVII and that Annexure-AIV would show that on 30.07.2008 there was no call to the mobile phone of respondent No.2 from the mobile phone of petitioner. 2. What is raised before me is a defence which petitioner may set up in the course of trial. Whether those documents can be relied or that the case of prosecution could be accepted are all matters which the trial court has to decide. Based on a plea of defence which petitioner may successfully raise during trial of the case, proceedings cannot be quashed. Crl.MC No.4733/2010 2 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be granted exemption from personal appearance. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the learned Magistrate and if any such application is filed learned Magistrate shall consider the request having regard to the contentions raised and also regarding the necessity for identification of the accused, if any. Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks