1. In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to quash Annexure G F.I.R. and all subsequent proceedings including C.C. No. 244 of 2008 pending before the J.F.C.M. I, Vaikom.

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:-

A private cable operator by name "Karikode Cable Vision" had set up its installation at Kudavechoor without obtaining sanction from the Electrical Inspectorate of the K.S.E.B. which alone had the authority to permit the laying of cable lines through electric posts after considering the safety aspect behind the same. The said cable operator had given a cable connection to the de facto complainant M.A. Rajeev (3rd respondent herein). Due to the irresponsible and negligent manner in which the connection was given, the complainant's wife (Smitha) sustained an electric shock from the cable on 8-6-2005. Thereupon the complainant preferred applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act" for short) before accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Prabhakara Panicker, Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, K.S.E. Board, Vaikom and P.J. Jose, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E. Board, Vaikom) to the effect that the aforementioned private cable operator was operating without taking adequate safety measures, that they were unauthorisedly tapping electricity from various points and that untoward occurrences were taking place. The complainant had given such complaints to the first accused on 15-3-2007 and 2-6-2007 and to the 2nd accused on 22-5-2007. In the reply given by A1 on 30-6-2007 it was falsely stated that there was no report of any accident in the area of operation of the aforesaid cable operator and that there were no security lapses on the part of the K.S.E. Board. Similarly, in the reply dated 20-9-2007 given by A2 it was falsely stated that it was after the officials concerned satisfying about the safety regulations that connection was given to the cable operator. The 2nd accused refused to accompany the complainant who volunteered to show the illegal abstraction of electricity by the cable operator. The accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 166 and 167 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.

THE COGNIZANCE

3. Annexure H private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent herein before the Magistrate was forwarded to the Vaikom Police Station under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Annexure G is the F.I.R. and Annexure H is the final report. Subsequently, the J.F.C.M.I Vaikom took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 167 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and registered the case as C.C. No. 244 of 2008. Summons was issued to the accused. They entered appearance. It was thereafter that the accused filed the present Crl.M.C. for quashing the proceedings against them.

4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned counsel appearing for the Addl. 3rd respondent/complainant.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROSECUTION

5. Adv. Sri. Roy Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the Addl. 3rd respondent/complainant made the following submissions before me in support of the prosecution:-

There was a statutory obligation on the accused to give true and correct information to Annexures D, E and F applications. In Annexure A reply given by A1 to Annexure D application and Annexure C reply given by A2 to Annexure F application, the real truth was suppressed and false replies were given. The accused have thereby committed the alleged offences. Going by the decision in Achamma Chacko v. Government of Kerala 2007 (2) KLT SN 68 even if some of the offences in the F.I.R. cannot be made out, that is not sufficient to quash the F.I.R. The decisions in Swaran Singh and Another v. State - (2008) 8 SCC 435 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal -1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 have laid down the broad parameters regarding the principles governing the exercise of the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and courts ar