IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4486 of 2005() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER in CC 823/03, 824/03 AND CC.204/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- BIJI, S/O.JOY, MULLEYKKAATTIL VEETTIL, KEEZHVANVAZHI KURI, PANDANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. BIJI CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIYAN, PULLEKKATTIL, KIZHVANMAZHI, PANDANAD, CHENGANNUR. 4. SUBASH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AMBAZHATHAKITIYIL, KIZHVANMAZHI, PANDANAD, CHENGANNUR. 5. KALYAANIYAMMA, AMBAZHATHAKITIYIL, KIZHVANMAZHI, PANDANAD, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR FOR R4 & R5 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR - R1 AND R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN CRL. M.A. NO. 16049 OF 2005 IN CRL. M.C. NO.4486 OF 2005. DISMISSED 25.2.2009 Sd/-(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- CRL. M..C. NO. 4486 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in C.C. Nos.823 of 2003, 824 of 2003 and 204 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Chengannur. The allegation against the petitioner in C.C. No.823 of 2003 is that he committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In C.C.No.824 of 2003, he is facing indictment for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C. Subsequently, the 5th respondent herein filed Annexure 2 private complaint allegedly on the same set of facts against the petitioner which culminated in C.C. No.204 of 2004. As per Annexure 2 complaint, the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 506(ii), 144, 148 and 149 I.P.C. This Crl. M.C. has been filed seeking to quash Annexure 1 F.I.R. in respect of C.C. No.823 of 2003, Annexure 1(a) F.I.R. in respect of C.C. No.824 of 2003 and Annexure 2 private complaint contending that three charge sheets have been laid in three cases in respect of one and the same incident and in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C., all the charges ought to CRL.M.C. NO.4486/2005 2 have been consolidated. It is further contended that the investigation is vitiated by law and also on facts and that the First Information Reports in respect of all the three charge sheets are liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, 2004(3) K.L.T.444 (SC). In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that taking cognizance thrice in respect of the same incident is illegal. However, in view of the facts of the cases revealed from Annexures 1, 1(a) and 2, I am of the opinion that it is relevant to consider the aforesaid contentions. 2. It appears that this Crl. M.C. has been filed on mistaken facts. Annexure 1 and Annexure 1(a) are First Information Reports in a case and counter case. During the pendency of this case, the petitioner was acquitted in C.C. No.823 of 2003. That apart, it is obvious from Annexure 1(a) that the petitioner is not at all an accused in C.C. No.824 of 2003. A perusal of Annexure-2 private complaint would reveal that as per the allegations, the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. as well. Essentially, the allegation is that he had committed house trespass. The scene of occurrence and the alleged offence are also different. Suffice it to say that in view of the facts borne out from Annexures 1, 1(a) and 2, the contentions of the petitioner merits no CRL.M.C. NO.4486/2005 3 consideration. In these circumstances, I am unable to uphold the contention of the petitioner that in respect of the same incident , three charges have been laid against him. When the allegations make out ingredients for offences alleged to be tried under distinct and separate charges, there is no question of any interference by this Court. In the result, I hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Crl. M.C. is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ CRL.M.C. NO.4486/2005 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL. M.C. NO. 4486/2006 O R D E R 25th February, 2009