IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1826 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 155/07 OF BEKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------- K.ASHOKAN, S/O.LATE VASU, AGED 29 YEARS, ROHINI NIVAS, NEAR THRIKKANNADU TEMPLE, BEKKAL P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1826 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(i) r/w. 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with the three co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention had allegedly committed the offences against a police constable and a security staff, who were on duty at the Bakel Fort and Pallikkara Beach in Kasargode district. Crime was registered on the basis of the F.I. Statement lodged by the victim police constable (CW1). In the F.I. Statement he made allegations against four persons. Only one of them (A1) was named in the F.I.S. In the course of investigation the complicity of the other three were confirmed and their identity was ascertained. It is thereafter that the petitioner was brought on the array of accused Crl.M.C.No. 1826 of 2008 2 by a report filed by the Investigator. Cognizance has been taken. The matter is pending before the Magistrate. 2. The petitioner has at this stage come to this Court with this petition with a prayer that the prosecution launched against him may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds in support of his plea. First of all it is contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It would be puerile for a court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash a prosecution against an accused on the sole ground that he is not named in the F.I.R. 3. It is secondly contended that there is no proper evidence of identification of the petitioner as one of the accused person. The prosecution appears to have cited six witnesses, out of which two claim that they can identify the petitioner by name. They had given the name of the petitioner as one of the four accused persons. They are CW2 (the victim security staff) and CW4. All the others, including the victim CW1 (police constable) assert that they shall be in a position to Crl.M.C.No. 1826 of 2008 3 identify the accused persons. Of course, no identification parade has been conducted also. 4. The counsel contends that identification by two of the six witnesses should not have been accepted and acted upon even for the purpose of filing a positive final report (charge sheet) against the petitioner. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for this court to conclude that the prosecution against the petitioner must be quashed on the ground that only two of the six witnesses have identified the petitioner and the others do not know the petitioner and had not identified him in any test identification parade. 5. The learned counsel thirdly contends that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. A careful reading of the nature of the allegations reveal that all the four accused persons were available in the car and they had acted in furtherance of their common intention when the first accused allegedly attacked CW1 and the others intimidated CW2. That is the allegation. I only take the view that there is nothing to show that those allegations are totally false, Crl.M.C.No. 1826 of 2008 4 unacceptable or perverse as to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. I have only taken the view that the proceedings do not deserve to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT) Judge tm