IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 176 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.489/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD ............................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST.ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- C.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KULATHINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PEROORKKADA (P.O.)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA DEVI, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, SREE NAGAR, MANIKANTESWARAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -13. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.G.P.SHINOD, MR.RAM MOHAN.G., MR.MANU V. MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 176 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.489/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate on Annexure X private complaint, for the offences under sections 417, 418, 419,420, 465, 467, 468, 120B of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure X complaint and all the proceedings in C.C.489/2008. Case of the petitioner is that after investigation Annexure IX refer report was filed and in Annexure X complaint the very same witnesses were shown as the witnesses to be examined by the first respondent and first respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition 31513/2000 before this court which was dismissed under Annexure VI judgment and first respondent is filing complaints before different authorities and the complaint is only an abuse of process of court and therefore it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the first Crl.M.C.176/2009 2 respondent pointed out that petitioner has only sought to quash Annexure X complaint and did not challenge the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and in such circumstance, the complaint cannot be quashed for the reason that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence without examination of all the witnesses and if at all the remedy of the petitioner is to seek an order of discharge. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, I find no reason to quash the complaint as sought for. If the allegations on the complaint are accepted as correct it cannot be said that ingredients of the offences are not made out. Being a case tried as a warrant trial otherwise than on police report, petitioner is entitled to seek an order of discharge under section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is at liberty to file an application for discharge under section 245 and raise all the contentions raised herein. With that liberty petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006