IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3335 of 2011() ------------------------- P.129/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD. (CRIME NO.1010/2010 OF VENJARAMOOD POLICE STATION.) ....................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 6 --------------------------------- 1. NISHAD, S/O.ASHARF, A.M.MANZIL, NEDUMKAITHA, MANIKKALMURIYIL, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE. 2. SHAMNAD, S/O.ABDUL SALAM, SHAN MANZIL, DO.. DO.. DO.. 3. SHAFI, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, SHAFI MANZIL, DO... DO.. DO... 4. KOCHUNNI, S/O.JOHNSON, THADATHARIKATHE VEED, KALLUPALAM, DO.. DO.. DO.. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.31. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOOD POLICE STATION.695 607. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX.M.THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SU CR.M.C.NO.3335/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1- COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.1010/2010 OF VENJARAMOOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN ANNEXURE A1 CASE. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3335 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 6 in Crime No.1010/2010 of Venjaramood Police Station. That crime was registered alleging offences under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 114, 294 (b), 308 and 324 IPC. Now, it is stated to be in the stage of committal proceedings. The accused was summoned before the learned Magistrate. Except Sec.308 IPC all other offences are bailable offences. The learned counsel submits that since Sec.308 IPC is an offence triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate is likely to remand the accused following the decision in Suresh v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 600]. Because of that binding decision the learned Magistrate may be justified in remanding the accused. But the facts of the present case may have to be considered by the learned Magistrate. The facts dealt with in this case are seen to be different. According to the learned counsel, on going through the wound certificate, it can be seen that the injured therein had Crl.M.C. No.3335 of 2011 -: 2 :- suffered only one lacerated wound, contusion right hand and multiple abrasion. According to the learned counsel, only to make the offence, a sessions offence Sec.308 IPC has been incorporated. The learned counsel further submits that since there were so many accused, had the intention been otherwise serious injuries would have been inflicted. Though in the light of the aforesaid decision, the learned Magistrate can remand the accused and even though only summons were issued to the accused, the learned Magistrate can exercise the discretion in appropriate case considering the nature of the offences, the nature of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant etc. It is for the learned counsel for the accused to convince the learned Magistrate all those aspects. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observations. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt