IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1150 of 2011() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------------------- JOHNY @ JOHN K.S. AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.SAMUEL,KUTTIYIL HOUSE, PULLAD MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA). RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1150 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.143 of 2009 of Koyippuram Police Station and now pending trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Offences under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are attributed to the petitioner and others as per Annexure-4, final report. Allegation is that on 09.03.2009 at about 9 a.m. petitioner and other accused on account of enmity towards CW1 dumping waste in their property, trespassed into the courtyard of CW1 and voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt to him. Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted CW1 with an iron rod while petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.3 are said to have voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by kicking or assaulting. Petitioner contends that allegations are not correct and that in the wound certificate of CW1 prepared by the Medical Officer on 09.03.2009 at about 10.15 a.m. what is stated is that six identifiable persons assaulted CW1. But in the first information statement recorded on 11.03.2009 at about 3.30 p.m. the number of assailants has dwindled down to three and petitioner is also named as one among them. It is pointed out that even as per Annexure-1, wound certificate CW1, the defacto complainant was referred to the Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta from the District Hospital, Kozhenchery on 09.03.2009. But the first information statement was allegedly given and recorded on 11.03.2009 at about 3.30 p.m. at District Hospital, Kozhenchery. It is pointed out that if CW1 was referred to the Crl.MC No.1150/2011 2 Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta from the District Hospital, Kozhenchery on 09.03.2009 he could not have given any first information statement at District Hospital, Kozhenchery on 11.03.2009. 2. I am inclined to think that these are matters which the trial court has to decide. Whether the first information statement can be relied upon on the face of the above said contention, involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident could be found in favour in view of the statement in Annexure-I, wound certificate and statement made by the defacto complainant two days later all are matters which the trial court has to decide. Request to quash the proceeding cannot be accepted. 3. Since petitioner and the defacto complainant are direct brothers it is pointed out that that the matter could be settled. Learned counsel submits that if an opportunity is given it is possible that the matter may be settled. It is open to the learned Magistrate to explore the possibility of a settlement, if necessary and as law permits by sending the case to the Lok Adalath. With the above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks