IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 155 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.869/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR CRIME NO.477/2008 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBHASH, S/O.SOMANUNNITHAN, RESIDING AT 'CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PADUKOTTIKKAL MURI, PAPNDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, 'PAMBUMUKADI VADAKKETHIL HOUSE', KOORAMBALA VILLAGE, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.155 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have final report in Crime No.477 of 2008 and further proceedings in C.C No.869 of 2008 quashed. 2. Petitioners are accused in C.C No.869/2008 in relation to the offenses punishable under Section 20, 21 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The allegation is that there was illegal transportation of river sand in the vehicle driven by the first accused. The short contention of the petitioners is that cognizance of the offence can be taken only on the basis of a compliant. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies on “Moosa v Sub Inspector of Police” (2006(1) KLT 552). He therefore prays for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that in case this petition is allowed, it has not preclude the appropriate authority from proceeding in accordance with law. 4. It is unnecessary to go deep into the matter in the light of the decision "Moosa v Sub Inspector of Police" (2006(1) KLT 552) Crl.M.C No.155 OF 2010 Page numbers and “Jeewan Kumar Raut and Another v Central Bureau of Investigation” (AIR 2009 SC (2763). It is settled that when a statute provides that cognizance can be taken on a complaint only that alone can be done. The cognizance on the basis of final report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prohibited. Therefore, the petition is only to be allowed. 5.In the result, the petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C No. 869/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor including the final report stand quashed. But it shall not preclude the respondents from taking such steps or proceeding available to them in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE