1. The petitioner who is the first accused is before this Court with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report vide Crime No. 1065/2004 of Kasaragod Police Station registered against him and others for the offences punishable under sections 193, 196, 205, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC pursuant to the complaint of the 1st respondent filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C as C.M.P.6826/2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod.

2. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the records need to be noted for deciding the issue mooted for consideration. Crime No. 338/2002 of Kumbala Police Station was registered against five accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 452, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. The case was taken on file by the court concerned as C.C. No. 519/2002 in which the injured were also five in number, namely Abdul Riyas, Shamsuddin, Beevi, Ahammed Kabir and Abdul Salam. It was alleged that CW1, 2 and 4 were employed in ship and they were not available in the locality to appear before the court for several months. So also the accused 2 and 4 were also not there as they were working in Gulf. While so the complainant, an injured got information from a police official who came to meet him that one accused told him that the case against the accused ended in acquittal. So he immediately made an enquiry and to his surprise it was realized that the accused produced some persons before the court by impersonating them as the injured and the witnesses and managed to get an acquittal. It was also learnt that they misled the court by making false submission that the case was compromised and settled between the parties. It was also learnt that this petitioner who is an injured was falsely reported as not available in station to appear before the court to give evidence. Like that, for the accused who were not available in the locality to appear before the court, someone else had appeared before the court as the accused and thus cheated the court. Actually, the injured never appeared before the court and they were not examined as witnesses but false representations were made before the court that the matter was settled and managed to get an acquittal as per a Judgment dated 20.07.2004 by practicing fraud, before the court.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod in a Suo Motu revision (C.R.P.34/2004) considered the matter with the Revision Petition (C.R.P.36/2004) filed by an injured and set aside the order of acquittal and directed the trial court to have a de novo trial of the case and to take further steps for the conduct of an enquiry to form an opinion on the question of impersonation of accused and witnesses and thus de novo trial was conducted. Annexure-2 is the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent herein under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to take appropriate action against this petitioner and the co-accused. The learned Sessions Judge in the order observed as follows:

''9. So, on the facts presented in the case where the involvement of persons other than parties covered by the proceedings is strongly to be suspected in the impersonation of some of the accused and also the witnesses produced and examined and as already a complaint by one of the charge witnesses, who is stated of impersonated, is pending before the learned Magistrate, he shall refer such complaint to the police for a full fledged investigation and once the investigation is completed and report being filed, taking that also into account, on the complaint already presented, a requisite opinion has to be formed under Section 340 Cr.P.C regarding the filing of a complaint against the persons involved for the offences disclosed. The role of the advocates involved, whether they are privies to the fraud, if any committed or free from blame, but misguided, has to be considered on the materials placed in the enquiry and appropriate steps to be taken as the situation demand