IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3767 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.422/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... (CRIME NO.487 OF 2006 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.P.JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, UZHUTHANA MALAYIL HOUSE, CHETHIMATTOM KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.SIRAJ KAROLY, SMT. R. RAJASREE. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHINNAMMA, W/O. GOPALAN, OLOKARICHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.1, PARIPPUKARA, IMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3767 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 10th day of December,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.422/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,Ettumanoor taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406,468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken alleging that there is no reference about the complicity of involvement of the petitioner in the earlier statement given by the witnesses and only on subsequent statement petitioner was implicated and in any case without sanction under section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. It cannot be said that there is no material to take cognizance of the offence under sections 406,468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code. Though it was argued that the statement of witnesses recorded originally Crl.M.C.3767/2009 2 do not disclose any materials against the petitioner and therefore the subsequent statements cannot be accepted, exercising the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not for this court to appreciate the evidence. It is up to the petitioner to raise the contention at the time of trial. Though it was contended that without sanction learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences, though petitioner is a public servant the offence alleged cannot be termed committed in discharge of his official duty. In such circumstance, petition is dismissed with liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006