IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3696 of 2007() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.6 ------------------------------- RAJESH, S/O.SANTHA, CHITTAZHI VEEDU, VELUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3696 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 O R D E R In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks to quash the final report in Crime No.53 of 2005 of Erumapetty police station and the proceedings thereafter initiated as CC No.332 of 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry. 2. The aforesaid crime was registered on 19.02.05 against six accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. The 6th accused was shown as Rajesh, S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil, Veloor Village and Desom. After the conclusion of investigation, the police filed Annexure A1 charge sheet against the aforesaid six persons. The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the offence as against those six persons and took the case on file as CC No.332 of 2005. Subsequently, the investigating officer filed Annexure A3 report before the learned Magistrate to the effect that the investigation revealed that the 6th accused is Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi Veedu, Veloor and not Rajesh, Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007 2 S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil, Veloor. Thereupon the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner who claims that he is Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi Veedu, Veloor. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor attempted to sustain the summons issued to the petitioner by submitting that it was only a mis-description. Even if it was a mis-description, no report could have been filed before the court below after the cognizance was taken of the offences in the manner that has been done in this case. If such a report was filed during investigation, then the investigating officer could have rectified the mis-description and filed the final report before the court showing the correct name and address of the accused. That was not done. The court had taken cognizance of the offences as against all the six accused persons including the aforesaid Rajesh, S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil, Veloor. The only mode by which the name and other details of a person who has been charge sheeted and against whom cognizance has been taken, is by seeking either a further investigation under 173(8) Cr.PC or by roping in such person by resort to Section 319 Cr.PC, if his name and identity were Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007 3 revealed by the evidence adduced before the Magistrate. Hence, the court below was not justified in issuing Annexure A2 summons to the petitioner who is not the 6th accused who has been charge sheeted and against whom cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. The petitioner, i.e., Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi Veedu, Veloor cannot therefore be summoned before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry for the purposes of the trial in CC No.332 of 2005. This Crl. MC is accordingly allowed but without prejudice to the right of the investigating officer to seek further investigation, if so advised. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE btt Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007 4