IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 2513 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.1173/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- 1. E.RATHNAMMA,AGED 72 YEARS,W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR,PARUKONATH VEEDU,NAVAIKULAM P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANA NAIR,RESIDING AT HARI-KRISHNA, VADAKEVILA P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. RAMANI V.NAIR,AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYANATHAN NAIR,RESIDING AT GOKULAM, PUNNAPURAM,PETTAI,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 011. 2. RAMACHANDRA KURUP,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP,WORKING AS STATION MASTER IN INDIAN RAILWAYS AT VARKALA RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA P.O,RESIDING AT ASHWATHI,RAMAN PARAMBU, THAKKALA VILLAGE,KULKULAM TALUK,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 SMT.A.K.PREETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.2513 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.1173/2006 on the file of J.F.C.M, Varkala for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC, seek to quash Annexure C complaint as well as the proceedings before the said Magistrate. 2. According to the petitioners, this is a frivolous and vexatious complaint instituted by the 2nd respondent herein, whose complaint before the Kallambalam Police ended in a refer report and Annexure B refer report will go to show that the averments in the complaint are false. The petitioners would contend that none of the offences alleged in Annexure C private complaint has been made out. 3. It is true that Annexure C - private complaint was preceded by a refer report. But then, the question is as to whether the complaint contains allegations sufficient to constitute all or any of the offences mentioned therein. Annexure C - private complaint alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 323, 307, 294(b) and 506 Crl.M.C.No. 2513 of 2007 2 (ii) read with 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act,1959. 4. After perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance only of offences punishable under Sections 323,341 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC. 5. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, I am inclined to accept the petitioners' contention that the averments in the complaint do not prima facie make out the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for want of the necessary allegation constituting the offence of 'simple hurt' as defined under Section 379 IPC. There is no averment in Annexure C complaint that on account of the acts of the accused, the complainant suffered bodily pain, decease or infirmity. Hence, Annexure C complaint, so far it relates to Section 323 IPC, is hereby quashed. 6. With regard to the rest of the offences for which cognizance has been taken, it is too early to conclude that those offences are not made out in the complaint. Accordingly, C.C.No.1173of 2006 shall be proceeded with for offences punishable under Section 341 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj