IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 254 of 2008()
1. PUSHPANGATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :30/01/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
CRL.M.C. Nos.254 & 260 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008.
O R D E R
The common petitioner in these petitions is the 1st accused
in C.C. No. 1043/2006 and the 4th accused in C.C. No. 1044/2006
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara.
C.C. No. 1043/2006 arose out of Crime No. 885/2004 of
Kottarakkara Police Station registered for offences punishable
under Sections 457, 511 of 380, 120(b) and 109 r/w Section 34
IPC. C.C. No. 1044/2006 arose out Crime No. 884/2004 of
Kottarakkara Police Station registered for offences punishable
under Sections 457, 511 of 380 and 120(b) r/w Section 149 IPC.
2. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely
implicated by the police on the basis of the alleged confession
statement made by one Peter who is the 1st accused in Crime No.
884/2004 and on the basis of the alleged confession statement
made by the petitioner herein in Crime No. 885/2004 both made
to the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanacherry during the
investigation of two crimes registered as Crime Nos. 321/2004
CRL. M.C. NO. 254 & 260 of 2008 : 2:
and 327/2004 of Chingavanom Police Station. The petitioner
would have it that as per the confession statement in Crime No.
321/2004, the petitioner herein, Peter (the person who allegedly
made the confession) and others had gone to Kottarakkara in a
Maruthi car on 26.12.2003 and had made an unsuccessful
attempt to break open the door of Sri. Hanumanswamy temple at
Puthoor, but the investigation conducted by the police has not
resulted in the collection of any evidence of attempt to break
open the door of the said temple. Similarly, the petitioner would
contend that his own alleged confession in Crime No.327/2004 of
Chingavanom Police Station is that on his instigation the other
accused in the case went to Kottarakkara in January, 2004 and
made an attempt to break open the door of the very same
temple at Puthoor. It is the case of the petitioner that no
investigation worth its name has been conducted to show that
the aforesaid statement made by the petitioner was true in which
case alone it may fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, so as
to become a reliable piece of corroborative evidence. Crime
Nos.321/2004 and 327/2004 of Chingavanom Police Station are
CRL. M.C. NO. 254 & 260 of 2008 : 3:
stated to have been transferred to Kottarakkara Police Station
and re-registered as crime Nos. 884 and 885 of 2005 referred to
earlier.
3. It is too early to consider the truth or otherwise of these
aspects at this stage of the proceedings. Admittedly, the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara has not framed charges
against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner can advance all his
arguments at the time of hearing before the Magistrate under
Section 239 Cr.P.C and can seek to get an order of discharge
from the Magistrate. Hence, these Crl. M.Cs are disposed of
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to plead for a
discharge at the time of hearing under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C
before the Magistrate.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL. M.C. NO. 254 & 260 of 2008 : 4: