IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 7501 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 504/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

K.S.LATHEEF,AGED 56 YEARS S/O SAIDU MUHAMMED FOUSIYA MANZIL ROSAPPOOKANDAM KUMALY, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT

685505 BY ADVS.

K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN SMT.BHANU THILAK RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KUMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 505,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

3 M.ABBAS,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MYTHEENPICHA, ANSHIDA MANZIL, ROSAPPOOKANDAM, KUMALY, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 505 FOR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH OTHER PRESENT:

R1 BY ADV. RANJIT GEORGE – PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.504/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peerumedu. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a private complaint submitted by the petitioner herein which is produced as Annexure-A1.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Crl.M.C.

are as follows:

The petitioner earlier submitted a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peerumedu against the 3^rd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) and consequently Crime No.312/2010 was registered by Kumaly Police Station. After completing the investigation thereon, a final report was submitted by the Police by which the complaint was referred as a false case. Thereupon, Annexure-A1 protest complaint was submitted by the petitioner/defacto complainant and the cognizance thereon was taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 506(ii), 294(b) r/w. Section 34 (‘Section 34’ presumably mistakenly mentioned instead of Section 341) of I.P.C. Annexure-A2 is the proceedings of the case, which would indicate that initially the proceedings were commenced by treating the same as summons case and the particulars of charge were read over to the 3^rd respondent/accused herein upon his appearance. Subsequently, as per proceedings dated 17.4.2015, the trial was converted into a warrant case realizing that the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) is triable as a warrant case. Thereafter, the matter was posted for framing charge without taking preliminary evidence under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in framing charge without conducting a preliminary inquiry as contemplated under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is illegal and it would cause serious prejudice to him at a later stage. This Crl.M.C. is submitted by the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid proceedings in such circumstances.

3. Heard Sri. George Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ranjit George, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st and 2^nd respondents and Sri. C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the irregularities in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate which are mentioned above. In response to the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would point out that there is no irregularity in the proceedings adopted by the learned Magistrate. It is pointed out that, the contents of the complaint would not constitute an offence under Section 5