IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1702 of 2005() ------------------------- CRIME NO.41/04 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED. ------------------------ RAJAN.T.M. AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.V.T.THOMAS PROPRIETOR, LITHAID COMPUTERS, 1/37, THEYILPURATH HOUSE, PADAMUKAL KAKKANAD, KOCHI 30, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. R.LEKSHMI, S.T.REDDIAR & SONS, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A.SALIM FOR R1 & R3 ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.7441/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1702/05 DISMISSED 08.08.08 SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.1702 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexures 2 to 4 and all other proceedings in C.C.No.1331/04 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate,-I, Alappuzha. 2. The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1331/04. The case has been proceeded against the petitioner and two other accused on the basis of the complaint filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C. copy of which is produced as Annexure 2. It is alleged in this petition that the allegation in Annexure 2 that the petitioner committed an offence under section 427 read with section 34 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence and that the Magistrate has referred that complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter which is illegal and that the Magistrate has no power to order the investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in respect of a non- cognizable offence. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has mechanically forwarded Annexure 2 complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha CRL.M.C.NO.1702/05 -2- South Police Station without applying the mind and ignoring the fact that he has no power to do so. Annexure 3 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.41/04 registered under sections 427 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner as the 3rd accused and two other accused. Annexure 4 is the copy of the final report filed before the Court of JFCM-I, Alappuzha alleging offence under Sections 427 and 34 of IPC, based on which C.C.No.1331/04 is registered by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and two other accused. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings against him.. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the second respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. This petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that prima facie case is made out under section 427 against the petitioner and the complaint filed by the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. was referred by the learned Magistrate to the Sub Inspector of Police, for investigation who filed the FIR after investigating the case under Sections 155(2) and that there is no illegality on the part of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the same. Further, the complicity of the accused including the petitioner has CRL.M.C.NO.1702/05 -3- to be decided by the learned Magistrate after considering the facts and evidence adduced by the parties before that court. 5. It is the settled law that section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by this Court only sparingly and that too to avoid abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice. Copy of the FIR is produced as Annexure 3, wherein it is mentioned by the Investigating Officer that the complaint preferred by the second respondent herein before the Magistrate Court as C.M.P.No.2913/03 was received by him for the purpose of registering the case and to conduct investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was investigated by him and filed the final report Annexure -4 before the learned Magistrate. In the final report which is attached along with Annexure-4, it is stated that the complaint of the first witness mentioned in the FIR received by him from the court was entered in the case register and subsequently the case was investigated by the 5th witness and filed the FIR along with the report before the learned Magistrate. Request was also made to order arrest of the accused after receiving the copy of the charge. All these proceedings done by the Investigating Officer as revealed from Annexure-4 can only be in accordance with the procedures complied in section 155(1) to (3) and cannot be under section 156(3) as mentioned in Annexure-3. By CRL.M.C.NO.1702/05 -4- simply quoting the section of law as section 156(3) in the FIR by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha South Police Station, it cannot be contended that the Magistrate has referred the matter in dispute which is a non-cognizable offence under section 427 of IPC for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 427 read with section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and some other accused on the basis of FIR and final report, Annexures 3 and 4. I find no illegality in the procedure and the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence can be decided by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. There is no illegality and no interference by this Court is required at this stage by invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. as prayed for in this petition. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in this petition, which is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law untrammeled by the observations in this Crl.M.C. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn