IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 930 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.134/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- GANGADHARAN , S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR KURIYIL HOUSE, KALLADIKKODU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATTUKAL POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 930 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the order in Crl.M.P. 4355/05 in C.C. 134/05 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. The Crl.M.P. was filed for the purpose of discharge and the court held that the petitioner is not at all entitled to get an order of discharge at that stage. The learned counsel would contend that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 365 and 368 are absent in this case. I had gone through the F.I. Statement given by the defacto complainant in the case. A perusal of that statement would reveal that so many allegations are attributed against the present accused. It is stated that the present petitioner had taken a room and settled there wherein the defacto complainant was alleged to be illegally confined. So it is too early a stage now to hold that there is no connection for this person in the case. I do not want to elaborate for the reason it may affect his case later. The veracity, truthfulness or correctness of the statement Crl.M.C.No. 930/2009 -2- under section 161 of the Code has to stand legal scrutiny at the time of cross examination. Therefore at the time of discharge, the court is only expected to look into materials cited and if it is found that there is no materials at all to connect the accused to the crime or that it is totally not sustainable under law, normal discharge is given. Otherwise one has to stand the trial and await the result of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has considered it elaborately and I do not find any reason to interfere the order refusing to discharge the accused. The Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm