High Court Kerala High Court

Augustine.M.A vs State Of Kerala on 22 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Augustine.M.A vs State Of Kerala on 22 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28328 of 2009(Q)


1. AUGUSTINE.M.A, SON OF ANTONY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.EASWARAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ------------------------------------------
             W.P.C.NO.28328 OF 2009
           ------------------------------------------
           Dated 22nd December 2009


                        JUDGMENT

Petition is filed under Articles

226 and 227 of Constitution of India for a

writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 and P3

and writ of mandamus restraining

respondents from initiating further action

pursuant to Ext.P1 special summons issued

under Section 206 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and Ext.P3 complaint filed

before the learned Magistrate which is

taken cognizance as M.V.petty case

No.602/2007. Case of the petitioner is

that his vehicle is KL-7.AZ.8572 and not

KL-7.Z.2872 which is involved in the

commission of the offence, as is seen from

Ext.P1 and therefore, petitioner cannot be

Wpc 28328/09
2

prosecuted for the said offence.

2. A statement was filed by Sub

Inspector of Police which was not

complete. Therefore, additional statement

was subsequently filed as directed by order

dated 13/11/2009. Additional statement filed

by Sub Inspector shows that the motor bike

of the petitioner is KL.7.AZ.8572 as stated

in the writ petition and the vehicle

involved in the incident is KL.7.Z.2872.

Additional statement shows that the said

vehicle does not belong to the petitioner

and by bonafide mistake the details

furnished by the rider of the motor bike

was recorded and Exts.P1 and P3 happened to

be issued.

In such circumstances, it is

absolutely clear that petitioner has nothing

Wpc 28328/09
3

to do with KL.7.Z.2872 which was involved in

S.T.11980/2007 as shown in Ext.P1 or petty

case No.602/2007 as seen in Ext.P3.

Therefore, it is declared that petitioner

shall not be prosecuted pursuant to Exts.P1

and P3.

Petition is disposed accordingly.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.