IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3947 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (C.C. NO. 556/09 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ADIMALY) ............ PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- BABU JOHN,S/O.JOHN,AGED 45 YEARS, ILLIKKANIRAPPEL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA KARA, PALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.SHAJI P.CHALY, MR.SANJITH.R. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KUMARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 64 YEARS, MUTTIYANIKUNEL HOUSE, IDIYANNALKARA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3947 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.556/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adimaly, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of the process of the court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Section 441A of Code of criminal Procedure mandates that every person, standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the particulars and in view of the declaration, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences on the allegation that CRMC 3947/09 2 the defacto complainant was agreed to stand as surety only for one accused and as against his wishes, when affidavit shows that he is standing as surety for the other accused also. Learned counsel submitted that for the two accused different counsel were appearing and hence, the case of the defacto complainant cannot be believed and in such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find sufficient ground to quash the proceedings as sought for. Exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence and disbelieve the versions made by the defacto complainant, as contended by the learned counsel. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. With that liberty, petition is disposed. 21st December, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv