IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3953 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- [CC.NO.102/2002 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA] .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ P.NARAYANAN, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER, MR.ANEESH JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. M.P.JAYARAJAN, CLOTH MERCHANT, KUNHIKANNAN TEXTILES, PANDALOOR P.O., NILAGIRI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3953 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 11th day of December,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.102/2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. By Annexure A1 judgment, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged first respondent the accused under section 245(1) of Code of Criminal procedure. Petitioner challenged that order before Additional Sessions Court, Kalpetta in Crl.R.P.15/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after reconsideration of the materials confirmed the order of discharge and dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 and A2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Case of the petitioner in his complaint was that while he was Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur Rural first respondent was a cloth merchant in Pandaloor of Nilagiri District and he married a girl from Kannur and there was matrimonial disputes, the Crl.M.C.3953/2009 2 father-in-law of the first respondent filed a complaint against the first respondent alleging that as part of settlement arrived at in a matrimonial disputes the father- in-law of the first respondent had handed over imitation jewellery instead of real gold jewellery belonging to the wife and the case was registered under section 420 of Indian Penal Code in Kannur Police Station and petitioner took up the investigation of the case and proceeded to Pandaloor and took custody of the accused and took him to Ooty where the real gold jewellery was allegedly entrusted to third person and effected recovery and while returning after recovery of the jewellery, a mob of about two hundred persons attacked the police party and released the first respondent. It is also alleged that the wrist watch of the petitioner was stolen by the first respondent and petitioner was accompanied by the Sub Inspector of Police and another Police Constable. Circle Inspector of Police was also in Police uniform and first respondent and 17 others obstructed them in discharging their official duty and first respondent was also rescued from the lawful custody and the articles recovered in Crime 110/1983 were also taken away and in such circumstances petitioner came to Sulthan Battery and lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and the Sub Inspector of Police registered Crime 103/1983 for the offence under Crl.M.C.3953/2009 3 sections 143,147,148,342,395,397, 324, 332,307 read wity section 149 of Indian Penal Code and during the course of investigation it was found that the place of occurrence is not within the jurisdiction of Sulthan Bathery police station and therefore the F.I.R was transferred to Meppady police station and the police after investigation referred the case and Crl.M.P.1202/1983 was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta as a protest complaint. It was dismissed on 23.1.1986. Petitioner challenged that order before Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.R.P.15/1986. Learned Sessions Judge set aside that order and directed the Magistrate to conduct a proper inquiry and it was challenged before this court in Crl.M.C.638/1989 and this court directed the Magistrate to conduct inquiry under section 202 of Code of Criminal procedure. There were originally 17 accused. As per order in Crl.M.C.403/1992, this court quashed the case as against him as per order in Crl.M.C.1469/1994. The case as against accused 3 to 14, 16 and 17 were also quashed. The case as against accused 1 and 2 were committed to the Sessions Court as per order in C.P.10/1989 and taken cognizance by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.148/1998. When the case was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge Sulthan Bathery, CRl.M.C.759/1999 was filed before this court challenging the cognizance taken and this court quashed the order of Crl.M.C.3953/2009 4 committal and also quashed the case as against the second accused and directed the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is thereafter learned Magistrate by Annexure A1 order discharged the petitioner. 4. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged Annexure A1 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Annexure A2 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of the powers of the revisional court , I find no reason whatsoever, to interfere with those orders in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the entire aspects in the proper perspective. Learned Sessions Judge rightly exercised the revisional powers finding that there is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety the revisions was dismissed. No illegality or irregularity in the order was pointed out. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006