IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3696 of 2007()
1. RAJESH, S/O.SANTHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/02/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3696 OF 2007
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner
seeks to quash the final report in Crime No.53 of 2005 of
Erumapetty police station and the proceedings thereafter initiated
as CC No.332 of 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Wadakkancherry.
2. The aforesaid crime was registered on 19.02.05 against
six accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 447, 427, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. The 6th
accused was shown as Rajesh, S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil,
Veloor Village and Desom. After the conclusion of investigation,
the police filed Annexure A1 charge sheet against the aforesaid
six persons. The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance
of the offence as against those six persons and took the case on
file as CC No.332 of 2005. Subsequently, the investigating officer
filed Annexure A3 report before the learned Magistrate to the
effect that the investigation revealed that the 6th accused is
Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi Veedu, Veloor and not Rajesh,
Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007
2
S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil, Veloor. Thereupon the learned
Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner who claims that he is
Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi Veedu, Veloor.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor attempted to sustain the
summons issued to the petitioner by submitting that it was only a
mis-description. Even if it was a mis-description, no report could
have been filed before the court below after the cognizance was
taken of the offences in the manner that has been done in this
case. If such a report was filed during investigation, then the
investigating officer could have rectified the mis-description and
filed the final report before the court showing the correct name and
address of the accused. That was not done. The court had taken
cognizance of the offences as against all the six accused persons
including the aforesaid Rajesh, S/o.Santha, Narangavalappil,
Veloor. The only mode by which the name and other details of a
person who has been charge sheeted and against whom
cognizance has been taken, is by seeking either a further
investigation under 173(8) Cr.PC or by roping in such person by
resort to Section 319 Cr.PC, if his name and identity were
Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007
3
revealed by the evidence adduced before the Magistrate. Hence,
the court below was not justified in issuing Annexure A2 summons
to the petitioner who is not the 6th accused who has been charge
sheeted and against whom cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate. The petitioner, i.e., Rajesh, S/o. Santha, Chittazhi
Veedu, Veloor cannot therefore be summoned before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry for the purposes of the
trial in CC No.332 of 2005.
This Crl. MC is accordingly allowed but without prejudice to
the right of the investigating officer to seek further investigation, if
so advised.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
btt
Crl.MC No. 3696 of 2007
4
