IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4685 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( IN CMP 5983 /2010 IN ST.176/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM ) .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------- SMT.RADHIKA, MINI COTTAGE, HOUSE NO.369, VYDYSALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT SURABHI, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.JAYAMOHAN, W/O. MOHAN, SMITHA NIVAS, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4685 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 30th November, 2010 O R D E R Accused in S.T.176/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,Kollam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II order passed in Annexure-I, petition filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Prayer in Annexure-I petition is to permit further cross examination of PW1 contending that when complainant was cross examined certain aspects were not asked and they are to be asked. By Annexure-II order, learned Magistrate dismissed the Crmc 4685/10 2 petition finding that PW1 was cross examined at length. 4. Annexure-I petition does not disclose what materials are omitted to be asked to PW1 when he was cross examined. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-II order. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner may be permitted to produce documents. It is upto the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate for that purpose. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner was not permitted to adduce defence evidence. If that be so, he has to challenge that order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.