IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4302 of 2010() ------------------------------------ C.C.658/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THODUPUZHA. ...................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUNNY, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, KALLIYADIKKAL VEEDU, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. 2. UNNI, S/O.MANIYACHARI, AGED 37 YEARS, KOCHUPURAKKAL VEEDU, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 684. 3. ANNAKUTTI, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 69 YEARS, KALLIYADIKKAL, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 684. 4. DIJO JOSEPH, KAMBAKTHINKAL VEEDU, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 684. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI, SRI.S. VISHNU. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANEESH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, KOKKATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, MULAPPURAM KARA, THODUPUZHA-685 684. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4302 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.658/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thodupuzha, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 506(i), 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-E complaint filed by the first respondent on the Investigating Officer submitting Annexure-D final refer report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in the light of the findings in Annexure-D final report, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences and in any case, when learned Magistrate is bound to consider the final report also before taking cognizance on the complaint and it was not taken into consideration, the cognizance taken is to be quashed. CRMC 4302/10 2 2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and going through the records, I do not find it for this Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken as sought for. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As cognizance was taken on Annexure-E complaint, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses are to be examined in the presence of the petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and based on the evidence, seek an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If petitioners file petition to dispense with their presence at that stage, learned Magistrate need not insist for their presence. Petition is disposed. 23rd November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv