IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2529 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- [SC.NO.26/2006 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURTS, (FAST TRACK), MAVELIKKARA]. .................... PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- VINOD, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, THATTAVAZHIL HOUSE, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.THAMBAN, MR.R.REJI, MR.B.BIPIN. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 2. CHELLAPPAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT VINOD BHAVAN, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2529 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in S.C.No. 26/2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint, based on which, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and thereafter committed the case to the Sessions Court, as the main case was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 307, 451 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that charge has already been framed by the learned Sessions Judge and the case is posted for evidence. 2. Annexure-A1 complaint is sought to be quashed contending that earlier private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default CRMC 2529/09 2 under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, a second complaint is not sustainable and therefore, learned Sessions Judge is not competent to proceed with the case. 3. Petitioner has not produced the order, by which, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance or by which, the case was committed to the Sessions Court or the charge framed by learned Sessions Judge. Even according to the petitioner, earlier private complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure for non prosecution and was not dismissed on merits. In such circumstances, the cognizance taken on the second complaint cannot be said to be illegal. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of trial. Petition is dismissed. 18th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv