IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3675 of 2007() ----------------------------- RC 322/2007 of JFCM-V, KOZHIKODE CMP 1330/2007 of JFCM-V, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER: ------------ SIVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, "KUNNATH HOUSE", KADAKKASSERI MEETHAL, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ANANDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIPILLA KESAV, PUTHIYA VEETTIL, PUNNAKKULAM NORTH, K.P.PURATH P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (NALLALAM POLICE, KOZHIKODE) BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 3675 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner seeks to quash proceedings made on 14.11.2007 in RC 322 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode accepting the refer report filed by the police and also seeks to direct the said Magistrate to revive and proceed with the original complaint produced as Annexure-1 rejecting the refer report filed by the police by granting leave to the petitioner to file a protest complaint seeking further action under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner filed Annexure-1 complaint before the J.F.C.M-V, Kozhikode alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466 and 471 r/w Section 506(i) IPC against the 1st respondent herein. The said complaint was registered as C.M.P.No. 1330/2007 by J.F.C.M-V, Kozhikode. The complaint was forwarded to the Nallalam police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. It was registered as crime No. 94/2007 of Nallalam Police Station for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, the police after investigation filed a refer report CRL. M.C. NO. 3675/2007 : 2 : before the Magistrate. According to the petitioner, he did not receive notice on the refer report issued either by the police or by the Magistrate. The petitioner would have it that Annexure A notice issued by the Magistrate was received by a neighbour of the petitioner bearing the same name and not by the petitioner. Consequently the Magistrate accepted the refer report and dropped the proceedings. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. Even assuming that the refer report has been accepted by the court without hearing the petitioner, that will not preclude the petitioner from filing a protest complaint before the Magistrate. (vide Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G. D. Mehrotra – AIR 2002 SC 483 and Arun Kumar v. Union of India – 2003 (1) SCC 734) Hence, the acceptance by the Magistrate of the refer report will not preclude the petitioner from filing a protest complaint before the court. Accordingly, M.C. is disposed of clarifying the above legal position. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 3675/2007 : 3 :