IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1172 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.1390/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SUMESH. K.V, S/O.BHASKARAN, KOPPULLY, ANNALLUR. P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.MOLLY KOSHY. RESPONDENTS/STATE ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1172 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is eighth accused in Crime No.183 of 2008 of Mala Police Station and C.C.No.1390 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magi, Chalakudy for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 283 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19 of the Kerala Police Act. Final report is submitted against petitioner and seven others alleging that on 12.04.2008 they took out a procession along public road without permission and obstructed vehicular traffic in violation of the order of this Court. It is stated that demonstrators had used a mike fitted on a vehicle. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the first information statement, there is no specific allegation against him and that none of the prosecution witnesses has identified him. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. At this stage I am at the question whether it is necessary to quash proceeding against petitioner invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub Inspector in his report has stated that obstruction to the vehicular traffic was caused by 25 men and 15 ladies. It is stated that he could not take into custody any of them or the vehicle to avoi untoward incidents since Police strength was low when compared to the people Crl.MC No.1172/2011 2 who had come on procession. Police Constables who were allegedly on duty with the Sub Inspector initially stated that the procession involved about 40 persons as above stated. They claimed that they can identify persons involved. It is seen from the documents produced by petitioner that those witnesses were again questioned by the Investigating Officer. They clarified that of the 40 persons referred to in their earlier statement only nine had taken part in the procession. They also mentioned the names of those nine persons who include petitioner as well. 3. Questions whether any identification parade was necessary, it was conducted or, dock identification if any made by the witnesses in court is sufficient are matters which the trial court has to decide. Going through the additional statement of witnesses it would appear that they have mentioned petitioner as one among the nine persons who obstructed traffic. So far as contention that the vehicle which was allegedly used for procession was not seized and none of the persons involved in the procession were arrested is concerned, there is an explanation for the Sub Inspector as above stated. Whether that explanation is acceptable is a matter which the trial court has to decide. 4. It is further contended that Annexure-A2, passport would show that petitioner came to India on 17.05.2008 and returned on 22.10.2008 while the alleged incident occurred on 12.04.2008. Certainly it is for the trial court to decide whether the passport can be accepted to show that petitioner was out Crl.MC No.1172/2011 3 of India on the day the incident is alleged to have occurred involving petitioner also. 5. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy is directed to dispose of C.C.No.1390 of 2009 (if there is no legal impediment in doing so ) as early as possible. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks