IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 787 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.2/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ANDROTT .................... (CRIME NO.7/2008 OF ANDROTT POLICE STATION) ... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- P.V.MUHAMMED KHASIM, S/O.CHODATH KOYA, POOVALAPPU HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.M.T.SHEEBA, SRI.P.A.RAJESH, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANDROTT POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.787/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.7/2008 OF THE ANDROTT POLICE STATION DTD. 15/08/2008. ANNEX.B: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.2/2011 OF THE J.F.C.M., ANDROTT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss BHABANI PRASAD RAY, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.787 of 2011. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th July, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the State. 2. The petitioner is the accused in CC.No.2/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Andrott. The charge sheet was filed in Crime No.7/2008 arising out of Andrott Police Station for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged incident was said to have been occurred on 15.8.2008 and the final report had been filed on 14.3.2010. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is delay under Section 468 (2) (b) Crl.PC that the charge has been filed after one year. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered view that the charge sheet filed against petitioner on 14.3.2010 after one year is Crl.M.C.No.787 of 2011. 2 barred by time according to Section 468(2)(b) Crl.PC. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence and issued process. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the complaint and accordingly I do so. Crl.M.C. is allowed as above. BHABANI PRASAD RAY, (Judge) Kvs/-