IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3465 of 2007()
1. VINOD, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUNJAN, S/O.RAMAN
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3465 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in a private
complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The petitioner has
come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him.
2. It will be apposite to briefly advert to the relevant facts,
which has culminated in the initiation of the prosecution against
the petitioner on a private complaint. About an incident which
took place on 19.12.2004, the first respondent had lodged a F.I.
statement before the police and crime 341 of 2004 was
registered at the Kollengode police station. In that the
complainant had specifically alleged that two persons, including
the petitioner herein, (who was shown as the first accused) had
committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324
r/w. 34 I.P.C. against the defacto complainant. Crime was
B.A.No. 3465 of 2007
2
registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed by
the police after such investigation.
3. In the final report submitted by the police, no allegations were
raised against the petitioner and the petitioner was dropped from the
array of accused. Final report showed only one accused, i.e. the
second accused in the F.I.R., as the sole accused. It would appear that
no notice was ever given to the first respondent of the dropping of the
petitioner from the array of accused. The first respondent received
summons from the court in the police charge case to appear as a
witness. He went to the court and at that stage, it appears, he came to
realise that the petitioner has been dropped from the array of accused.
He tendered evidence on oath. In the evidence, he implicated the
petitioner herein also. The learned Prosecutor filed an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that cognizance may be taken against the
petitioner herein also.
4. In the mean time, the first respondent filed a private complaint
raising his grievance against the dropping of the petitioner from the
array of accused. That complaint was pending as Crl.M.P. Adverting
B.A.No. 3465 of 2007
3
to that facts and on that ground the petition filed by the Prosecutor
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Later, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by the
petitioner on the basis of the private complaint (copy of which is
Annex.A) filed by the first respondent.
5. The petitioner has now come to this court with a prayer that
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the case
initiated on the basis of the private complaint against the petitioner.
What is the reason? The only reason urged is that the police after
investigation had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not
guilty and had dropped him from the array of accused. That is no
reason to foreclose the option of the first respondent to file a private
complaint. That the police had dropped the petitioner from the array of
accused is certainly not a valid reason to not entertain the private
complaint filed by the first respondent later.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that there
was delay in the filing of the private complaint. There is nothing to
show that notice was given to the first respondent before or at the time
B.A.No. 3465 of 2007
4
when cognizance was taken only against the second accused shown in
the F.I.R. As stated earlier, there is nothing to show that any such
notice/information was given to the first respondent. The allegation is
not barred by limitation and there is no contention before me that
cognizance was barred by the provisions relating to limitation in the
7. It follows from the above discussions that the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked against the
cognizance taken of the offences alleged against the petitioner as per
Annex.A complaint by the learned Magistrate.
8. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm
