IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3368 of 2005()
1. YESUDAS, S/O. ANTONY,
... Petitioner
2. JOJO. K., S/O. PAULOSE,
3. R. NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
4. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :06/02/2009
O R D E R
M.C.HARI RANI, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No. 3368 OF 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused Nos.34, 50, 52 and 106 in
C.C.Nos.248/03 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court, Chittoor and they were charged for the
offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 188, 341, 283 and
353 read with Section 149 of IPC. Annexure A1 is the true
photostat copy of the FIR in Crime No.124/02. Annexure A2 is
the copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.248/2003. The prayer in
this petition is to quash Annexures A1 and A2 against the
petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that all the Petitioners are innocent and no offence
has been committed by them and they were not involved in any
of the offences.
4. This petition is opposed by the learned Public
CRL.M.C.No. 3368/05 2-
Prosecutor and submitted that altogether 114 accused are there and
there are no merits in this petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
produced the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27051/04 of this Court, whereby
proceedings against 53rd accused in C.C.No.248/2003 has been
quashed as per order dated 30.11.2004 in the petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On a perusal of that order, it is
revealed that the 53rd accused, the petitioner in that Writ petition, is an
Alloepathy Doctor practising in Kochi and this Court has found that the
petitioner therein, the 53rd accused has been implicated by the police
“only to harass and desist him from participating in the agitation
against the company.”
6. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and also the learned Public Prosecutor, I find no reason to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which
can be applied only sparingly and with caution. The prosecution is
bound to prove the prosecution case by adducing evidence. Whether
the petitioners herein have committed any offence or not are matters
to be decided by the trial Judge, after considering the evidence on
record. This Court cannot jump into the conclusion that no offence has
CRL.M.C.No. 3368/05 3-
been committed by the petitioners herein as prayed for in this Crl.M.C.
The involvement and the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged
offence are yet to be decided. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is
devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn