IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3880 of 2006()
1. P.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/11/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.3880 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2006.
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sections
323 & 325 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is
that he assaulted the victim/complainant, a person aged about 74
years, resulting in grievous hurt to the complainant. The alleged
incident took place on 04.07.2005.
2. First information report was registered by the police.
After investigation, the police had filed a final report to the learned
Magistrate reporting that the allegations were false. It is thereafter
that a private complaint was filed by the complainant dissatisfied
about the police investigation. A copy of the complaint is produced as
Annexure-F. Annexure-F reveals the allegations against the
petitioner. It also shows that the respondent/complainant had
produced the accident register cum wound certificate, which allegedly
shows that the complainant had suffered grievous hurt. The learned
Magistrate considered the complaint. He recorded the sworn
statement of the complainant and two witnesses. Copies of those
sworn statements are also produced as annexures in this
petition. The learned Magistrate thereupon found that there is
Crl.M.C.NO.3880 OF 2006 2
sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Accordingly
process was issued to the petitioner under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is at
that stage that the petitioner had rushed to this court with this
Crl.M.C. praying that the proceedings against him may be quashed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are totally false. Truth or falsity of
the allegations cannot evidently be attempted to be decided at this
stage of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I note particularly
that there is no specific contention that the victim had not suffered
any grievous hurt. At any rate, the wound certificate which is
produced before the court below, on the basis of which cognizance
has been taken under Section 325 Cr.P.C, is not placed before this
Court for perusal. The complaint appears to have been filed by the
victim and the police after investigation had filed a refer report, a
copy of which is produced as Annexure-D. Annexure-D final report
has been perused by me. Less said about the final report in this
prosecution, the better. The report does not even show whether the
victim had suffered any hurt or whether such hurt is a grievous hurt.
The contention that Annexure-D must have prevailed on the learned
Magistrate not to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C, cannot also
in these circumstances succeed. I shall scrupulously avoid any
detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the
Crl.M.C.NO.3880 OF 2006 3
allegations. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that
this is a fit case where invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the
petitioner may be permitted to claim discharge. No permission of this
Court is required for the petitioner to claim discharge. He can at his
option claim discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. He can also take
part in the proceedings at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C and claim
discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s right to claim
discharge under Section 245(1) & 245(2) Cr.P.C does not certainly
depend on any permission granted by this Court. The petitioner,
needless to say, can claim discharge under Section 245(1) or 245(2)
Cr.P.C. If the circumstances justify such request, the learned
Magistrate shall consider such request and pass orders.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is aged about 60 years and that if personal appearance of
the petitioner on all dates of posting were insisted, it would work out
great injustice and prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner, can
undoubtedly pray for exemption from personal appearance. I have no
reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would unnecessarily
insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner on all dates of
Crl.M.C.NO.3880 OF 2006 4
posting. No specific or special direction appears to be necessary. The
learned Magistrate must consider such application for exemption, if
any filed, on merits and expeditiously.
6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
subject to the above observations/directions.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
rtr/