IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2612 of 2006()
1. THOMAS, S/O.OOMMEN KOCHUMMEN,
... Petitioner
2. SONA, S/O. THOMAS, -DO- -DO-.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR.
3. SMT.SARASAMMA, W/O.CHELLAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2612 of 2006
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash Annexure-1 order.
As per Annexure-1 order learned Magistrate found that the
trial of C.C.176 of 2002 ought to be conducted by Sessions
Court, since there is a case and counter case in respect of the
same incident. Therefore, an order was passed committing the
case to the Sessions Court along with the other case which was
pending as C.P. 5/2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
case was instituted against petitioner as early as in 2002
alleging the offence under Sections 323, 324, 447, 506(II) read
with Section 34 IPC and evidence was also closed. But at the
fag end of trial a petition was filed by complainant stating that
the case ought to be committed to Sessions Court, since there
is another crime registered against complainant and her
husband in respect of same incident. According to petitioner,
there is no justification in committing the case at the belated
stage. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that
there is a case and counter case in respect of the same incident
2
and hence as per law, both cases have to be tried by the same
court. Therefore, no interference is called for in the Annexure-1
order, it is submitted.
3. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure-1
order, I find that there is no scope for interference. It is seen
from the said order that a case and counter case registered in
respect of the same occurrence. The main case is registered on
the basis of a complaint made by first accused herein against
defacto complainant and her husband alleging offence under
Section 307 IPC. The complainant in this case filed a counter
case stating that petitioners committed offences u/Ss.
323,324,447,506(ii) read with Sec.34 IPC against her and
husband. There is no dispute that both cases are in the nature of
a case and counter case. It is well settled that if a case and
counter case are pending in respect of same incident, both the
cases are to be tried and disposed of by the same court.
4. Therefore, there is no illegality in committing the
present case along with the main case under Sec. 323 of Cr.P.C
as the trial court found that the delay in committing the case
may not be relevant. In fact, the committal will only be to the
benefit of petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted
3
that the entire evidence is over and they may be allowed to recall
witnesses and re-examine them before the Sessions Court, if
necessary.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that if any request is made
for recalling any witness or witnesses Sessions Judge shall
consider such request and pass appropriate order, as he may
deem fit and proper, in accordance with law. However, there is
no ground to set aside Annexure A1 order.
In the result this petition is dismissed.
K.Hema, Judge
cms