IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 264 of 2005() ------------------------ CC.676/2003 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- K.V.GOPINATH, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. KUNJANPILLAI, 'SREENIVAS' CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY MATHEW PAUL, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CB CID (N& EOC) ERNAKULAM. 2. T.J.JOHN, S/O. JOSEPH, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, MOOLAKKAYAM KISUMAM, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.288 OF 2005,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.735/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.264/05 //DISMISSED// 25.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.Nos. 264 & 288 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009 O R D E R The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 264/05 is the second accused in C.C.No.676/03 and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.288/05 is the second accused in C.C.No.675/03 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. In both the Crl.M.Cs. petitioner is one and the same person. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.675/03 and C.C.No.676/03 pending on the file of the Court of C.J.M., Ernakulam as against the petitioner. It is alleged in this petition that no sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence under sections 406, 465, 468, and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, petitioner herein was the Manager of the financing company of which the second respondent was the Managing Partner. The main ground raised in these petitions is that the petitioner was laid up due to paralysis and is not fit both physically and mentally to face the prosecution case and that no CRL.M.C.Nos.264 & 288/05 -2- misappropriation whatsoever has been done by him as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has produced the medical certificates to substantiate the same. The correctness of those medical certificates and the present condition of the petitioner and whether any offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner, etc. can be decided by the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence. Simply because the petitioner was laid up due to paralysis, the complaints produced as Annexure-IV and all further proceedings against the petitioner in the above cases cannot be quashed by this Court after invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, both the Crl.M.Cs.are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the learned Magistrate as envisaged under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and on filing such a petition, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the same in accordance with law. In the result, both Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn