Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2529 of 2009()


1. VINOD, S/O. CHELLAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHELLAPPAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YRS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :18/09/2009

 O R D E R
             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