IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 465 of 2010()
1. N.J.RAY,S/O.N.P.JONES,NEDUVELIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
2. SASIKUMARA KURUP,S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.PRABHU
For Respondent :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.465 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.465 of 2009 of the court of learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. That is a case arising from a private
complaint preferred by respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections
279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). According to
respondent No.2, on account of the rash and negligent driving the car driven by
petitioner hit the car which respondent No.2 was driving, resulting in damage to
the car and injury to respondent No.2. It is contended by petitioner that no
offence as alleged is made out, Police had registered a case against respondent
No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Code, he faced
trial but on account of the understanding reached between petitioner and
respondent No.2, petitioner did not give strong evidence and thereon
respondent No.2 was acquitted. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to
various records produced along with this petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and
the Public Prosecutor.
3. The vehicles driven by petitioner and respondent No.2 were coming
from opposite direction and, at Thanki junction the vehicles collided. The Police
investigated the case and submitted final report against respondent No.2 as
Crl.M.C.No.465/2010
2
aforesaid in which case he was acquitted. Thereon respondent No.2 filed a
complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging rash and negligent driving on
the part of petitioner. That complaint was forwarded to the Police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,
“the Cr.P.C.”) . The Police registered Crime No.222 of 2008 and after
investigation submitted Annexure-B, final report stating that petitioner has not
committed any offence (in tune with their finding which led to the final report in
C.C.No. 810 of 2007 against respondent No.2). On the Police submitting final
report as above stated, respondent No.2 filed Annexure-A, complaint against
petitioner alleging offences as first above stated. That complaint was taken on
file as C.C.No.465 of 2009 which is sought to be quashed. Now the question to
be decided is whether the complaint is to be quashed for which one has to refer
to the averments in the complaint where there are allegations of rash and
negligent driving on the part of petitioner. Merely because respondentNo.2 was
charge-sheeted, prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the
Code and was acquitted, it could not be said that the complaint against
petitioner is not maintainable. What is the worth of the allegations in the
complaint in the light of the result of the investigation in C.C.No.810 of 2007, the
final report therein and the prosecution of respondent No.2 in the said case are
all matters which the trial court has to be decided after trial of the case. I am
afraid, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is not
required to go into the merit of contentions raised. That is left for decision by the
Crl.M.C.No.465/2010
3
trial court at the appropriate stage. In the circumstances, the request of petitioner
to quash the proceedings cannot be accepted.
Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. Court below shall dispose of
the case untrammelled by any observation contained in this order.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks