IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 611 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CC.19/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOY.M.M., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW ULAHANNAN, MUNDAKKATTUTHADATHIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM NORTH.P.O., PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. MOLLY, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.PAULOSE, VALIYAKATTAYIL HOUSE, NAMKKUZHI, MULAKKULAM NORTH.P.O., PIRAVOM- 68 664. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.611 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.787 of 2009 of Piravom Police Station and C.C.No.19 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(ii), 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 24.11.2009 at about 5 p.m. petitioner and others allegedly trespassed into the compound of the defacto complainant and in furtherance of their common intention attacked the defacto complainant. Motive alleged is that respondent No.2/daughter of the defacto complainant did not repay the amount borrowed from accused No.1. It is contended that petitioner is not involved in the alleged incident and going by the prosecution case there is no material to show that petitioner shared common intention with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that in Annexure-A, medical certificate name of petitioner is not mentioned and that the injury was allegedly caused (as stated by the Medical Officer) by accused No.1. Annexures-C and D also do not mention any overt act on the part of petitioner, it is contended. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are sufficient materials to show that petitioner shared common intention with accused Nos.1 and 2. Going by the statement of the defacto complainant appended to Crl.MC No.611/2011 2 Annexure-C, FIR petitioner had been to the compound of the defacto complainant along with accused Nos.1 and 2. The defacto complainant has specifically mentioned name of petitioner as among the persons who allegedly trespassed into her compound. True the alleged overt act is attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated in the first information statement that in the course of incident when respondent No.2 cried out all the accused including petitioner (accused No.3) ran away. Whether these circumstances are sufficient to show that petitioner shared common intention with accused Nos.1 and 2 is a matter which trial court has to decide. Petitioner cannot in the above circumstances request this Court to quash proceeding against him. In the circumstances I find no reason to interfere. Learned Magistrate shall consider the alleged involvement of petitioner in the incident untrammelled by any observation contained in this order. Petition is dismissed with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks