IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2006 ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------------------- 1. RAJU KATTAKAYAM, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KATTAKAYAM HOUSE, MALOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. SHAJI, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 35 YEARS, KIAITHOLIL, MALOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. JOSE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, VALLOOR HOUSE, MALOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. MANOJ, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, VALLIAPLAKAL HOUSE, MALOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. JAMES, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS, THACHILEDETHU HOUSE, MALOM, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SMT.LINDA GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS: /STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BOLLAN, S/O.ADORE, MANIYARA HOUSE, NAMBIAR MALA, MALOM, HOSDURG TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE.- R1 SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR- R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2442 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. ORDER Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in Crime No.106/2006 of Vellarikundu Police Station in Kasaragod district for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the above proceedings initiated against them. 2. The case of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, as revealed from Annexure A1 First Information Report, is that on August 6, 1990 at about 6 PM while he was talking to his wife at his residence, the accused had gone there and asked the de facto complainant to join them to hoist the flag of the Congress Party. When the de facto complainant refused to join the accused and went inside the house, the accused barged into the room and called him by his caste name 'Mavilan' and assaulted him. The accused beat the de facto complainant on his face and all over the body several times. His wife and sister were also beaten by the accused. When the neighbours came to the scene, the accused disappeared. The Police had registered the FIR on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant at the hospital on the next day at 1 PM. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no charge under Section 323 of the Act will be attracted against the accused Crl.MC.2442/2006. 2 under any circumstances. He also contends that the above case has been foisted on the accused out of political enmity. Anyhow I do not propose to deal with any of the contentions raised by the petitioners/accused at this stage, particularly in view of the averment made by respondent No.2 in the affidavit filed by him in this case. 4. In the affidavit it is stated by the de facto complainant that he had mentioned the name of petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) to the Police by mistake. According to the de facto complainant, petitioner No.1 was not present among the assailants, that his name was furnished to the Police by mistake. He intends to state the real facts to the Police in the course of investigation. In view of the above assertion made by the de facto complainant, I am satisfied that the proceedings pending against petitioner No.1 in the above crime are liable to be quashed. I do so. 5. However the Police shall investigate the case against the other petitioners and complete the process expeditiously. I hasten to add that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners 2 to 5 before this Court. Crl.M.C is closed in the above terms. an. A.K. Basheer Judge.