IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1614 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.5/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------- ABDUL NAZIR @ NAZIR, AGED 21 YEARS, ANEKATTU HOUSE, POST ANEKALLU, KODLAMOGARU VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. A.P. MOHAMMED, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. A.K.PUTHU, ANZAR MANZIL, ANEKKAL, ANEKKAL P.O KODLAMOGARU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. UMMER FAROOK, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER HAJI. 3. T. ANDUNHI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUNHIPPA. 4. ISMAIL MIS BAI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE ALIKUNHI. 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT ANEKALLU HOUSE, POST ANEKALLU, KODLAMOGARU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1614 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution alleging offence punishable inter alia under Section 326 IPC. On an information lodged by him, crime No.212/06 of Manjeswar Police Station was registered. After completing investigation, the final report was filed and cognizance was taken against some accused persons. It is submitted that the trial in that case has already commenced and the same is at the fag end of trial. 2. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent herein, who is the first accused in that crime, has filed a private complaint and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as CC No.5 /08. In that complaint, the complainant had alleged that the petitioner and three others had allegedly attacked him and had committed offences against him and others. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner and others may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the ground? The only ground urged by the Crl.M.C. No.1614 OF 2008 2 learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the incident in that case was taken place on 10.07.06 and crime No.212/06 was registered on 11.07.06, this private complaint has been filed only on 24.10.07. Though the complaint is not barred by limitation, the long delay in filing the complaint must convince this Court that the allegations are false and are put up belatedly only to vex and harass the petitioner. It is in these circumstances prayed that the complaint against the petitioner may be quashed. 3. I have gone through the averments in the complaint which is produced as Annexure A3. A perusal of the said Annexure shows that a counter crime has already been registered as crime No.217/07 and after investigation into that crime registered at the instance of the 1st respondent, a refer charge was filed. The 1st respondent, in the said complaint has a grievance that the refer charge was accepted without giving notice to him. It is in these circumstances that the private complaint was filed on 24.10.07, on coming to know of the refer report raising allegations under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. It is true that the complaint is filed only on 24.10.07. But Crl.M.C. No.1614 OF 2008 3 the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement which have been produced as Annexure A3 clearly show that the complainant had advanced a reason to justify the belated filing of the complaint. It is also seen that the complainant and the other alleged victim had gone to the doctor and were discharged after treatment on 14.07.06. The averment in the complaint was that the 1st respondent/complainant was in the hospital along with another from 12.07.06 to 14.07.06. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At this early stage of this proceedings, I shall simultaneously refrain from embarking any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data placed before the learned Magistrate. Suffice, it is to say that I am not persuaded to agree from the mere fact that there was delay in filing the complaint, that the complaint is false and vexatious or that the same deserves to be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all their contentions. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No.1614 OF 2008 4 petitioner submits that the main case which arose from Crime No.212/06 is in the final stages of hearing and the petitioner wants both cases to be disposed of by the same court. The petitioner can make proper application before either court or before the superior court to get both cases transferred to the same court and disposed of by such court. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations raised against the petitioners in CC No.5/08 and I do only take the view that the complaint does not deserve to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No.1614 OF 2008 5 Crl.M.C. No.1614 OF 2008 6