IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4216 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.292 OF 2008 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 ----------------------------- 1. MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ MANU, S/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, AGED 44 YEARS, POOTHANIYIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR, PATTAMBI. 2. KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.VAPPU, AGED 70 YRS, POOTHANIYIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, KADANKANDATHIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR, MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4216 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner is the owner of a quarry. The petitioners and the defacto complainant were thick friends. They fell out for some reason and this led to a civil suit being filed against the petitioners. The defacto complainant later filed a private complaint. The same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was accordingly that Crime No.292 of 2008 of Pattambi Police Station was registered. Investigation was undertaken by the local police. The defacto complainant raised objections that a proper investigation was not being conducted by the local police. He came to this Court with W.P(C) No.19698 of 2008. In that Writ Petition, it was reported to this Court that investigation has now been entrusted to a senior police official - a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He is continuing with the investigation. Crl.M.C. No.4216 of 2008 2 2. The petitioners have now come to this Court with the grievance that the proceedings initiated against them at the instance of the defacto complainant is vexatious and mala fide. No worthwhile allegations are made. The allegations only reveal the attempt by the defacto complainant to harass and vex the petitioners herein. The petitioners apprehend adverse action against them by the police. The counsel points out that the allegation under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act shown in the F.I.R is wholly unjustified. In these circumstances the petitioners are not able to seek regular bail as unnecessarily vexatious allegations of graver non bailable offences have been raised. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R is liable to be quashed. At any rate, the inclusion of the allegation under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act deserves to be quashed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that this petition is unnecessary and misconceived. The Dy.Superintendent of Police, after commencement of his investigation, has promptly submitted a report to the Magistrate to delete the allegation under Section 4 of the Explosive Crl.M.C. No.4216 of 2008 3 Substances Act and to include the allegation under Section 5 r/w Section 9 B (1) (b) of the Explosive Substances Act. All relevant facts are being verified and cross checked. The petitioners need not apprehend any vexatious action. Only if the investigation reveals commission of offences, shall further action be taken against the petitioners. 4. In the nature of the sequence of events that have followed after the Dy.S.P has taken over the investigation and on being apprised of the alteration of the section, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, that fact may be taken note of and recorded. The option of the petitioners to challenge the final report if it be adverse to them may be left open. No further directions are, in these circumstances, necessary in this Crl.M.C, I am satisfied. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, subject to the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-