IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1108 of 2011() ----------------------- CC.641/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, AMABALAPUZHA .................. PETITIONER / IST ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------- JOSEPH M.J, S/O.V.K.JOSEPH, VANIAPURAKKAL MULLAIKKAL HOUSE, THAICHIRA, PURAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENTS / STATE / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SUNI, D/O.P.S.THOMAS, PARAPPALLYIL HOUSE, EDATHUA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 573. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1108 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.456 of 2009 of Ambalapuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sec.107, 108, 351, 352, 358, 498A, 403, 323 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police investigated the case and submitted a final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha who has taken the case on file as C.C.No.641 of 2010. Petitioner wants to quash proceeding against him on the contention that allegations are false and at any rate there are no sufficient allegations to constitute the offences alleged. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Though it is contended by learned counsel that there are no sufficient allegation against petitioner/first accused I find from Annexure-A1, the private complaint that there are sufficient allegation made against the petitioner. Paragraph 3 onwards contain acts attributed to the petitioner. I am not persuaded to accept the contention that there are no sufficient allegation so that this Court should interfere and quash the proceeding. Crl.M.C.No.1108 of 2011 -: 2 :- Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate defence before the trial court, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge