IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26278 of 2010(Q)
1. LIBIN ABRAHAM, ATTUVAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
4. V.T.ANTHRAYOSE, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/09/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.C.NO.26278 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 20th September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, the second accused in
C.C.193/2008 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Kottayam filed
this petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India for a writ of
certiorari to quash C.C.193/2008 and
C.C.222/2008 and permit the petitioner to
deposit Rs.12,150/- being the loss suffered
by the K.S.E.B or in the alternative to
direct the learned Magistrate to accept
the deposit of Rs.12,150/0 from the
petitioner and to take steps in accordance
with the compromise or to direct the second
respondent to accept the loss quantified
at Rs.12,150/-, evidenced by Ext.P8 and
Wpc 26278/10
2
allow the learned Magistrate to take further
steps. C.C.193/2008 was taken cognizance for
the offences under Sections 451, 332, 341 and
506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(2)(a) of P.D.P.P Act, 1984
on Ext.P1 final report. C.C.222/2008 was taken
cognizance against fourth respondent in Ext.P3
final report, for the offence under Section 324
of Indian Penal Code. Ext.P1 final report shows
that prosecution case is that on 4/3/2008 at
about 3 p.m due to previous enmity of the
three accused against fourth respondent, they
in furtherance of their common intention
trespassed into K.S.E.B office and threatened
fourth respondent and caused hurt and
obstructed fourth respondent from discharging
his duty as Assistant Engineer and also
damaged the furniture and records of K.S.E.B
Wpc 26278/10
3
office and thereby committed the offences under
Sections 451, 332, 341 and 506(i) read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3
(2)(a) of P.D.P.P.Act. On the materials
furnished, cognizance taken in C.C.193/2008
cannot be quashed as sought for. So also there
cannot be a direction to the learned
Magistrate to accept the damages and to settle
the dispute.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner then submitted that by Ext.P8
Assistant Executive Engineer, Manarcad sought
directions of second respondent, Secretary of
K.S.E.B intimating the willingness of the
petitioner to pay damages of Rs.12,150/-
sustained by K.S.E.B and no order has been
passed in Ext.P8 and a direction be issued to
pass orders in Ext.P8. Learned counsel
Wpc 26278/10
4
appearing for the second respondent submitted
that Ext.P8 was received by the second
respondent.
In such circumstances, writ petition is
disposed directing the second respondent to
pass appropriate order in Ext.P8 expeditiously,
at any rate, within three weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this judgment.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.