Abhimanyu vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.3218/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. He faces an indictment for the offence under Section 341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the petitioner, pursuant to an FIR in Crime No.1914/2010 dated 16.12.2010, the Police had filed a refer report stating the case to be false. However, a protest complaint was filed as per Annexure-A4 in 2015, pursuant to which, the learned Magistrate is understood to have taken cognizance of the crime as C.C. No.3218/2017.

The defacto complainant had, in the FIR registered on 16.12.2010, alleged that the accused after wrongfully restraining him abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri. Kiran Lal M, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the protest complaint was filed after five years of the refer report and also that the accused was a minor as evidenced by Annexure-A3 certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education at the the time of offence. According to the learned counsel, the entire proceeding now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court is an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.

I have heard Sri. Noushad.K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor as well. It was submitted that the document produced as Annexure-A3 does not contain any seal and nor is it part of the records before the trial court and hence, it cannot be looked not at this stage.

On a perusal of the documents produced, it is noticed that the FIR was registered on 16.12.2010, while the final report is seen to have been filed on the same day itself, i.e., on 16.12.2010. The final report mentions that the notice of the refer report was refused to be accepted by the defacto complainant. It is strange that the final report was filed on the same day of registering the FIR. However, Annexure-A4 reveals that the refer charge was numbered as R.C. No.260/2012, and further, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged as well. Therefore, the technical contention regarding the protest complaint being filed after five years of filing the refer report is a matter which falls within the realm of disputed facts. Petitioner will have the opportunity to contest those issues before the learned Magistrate.

Apart from the above, the contention regarding the minority of the accused is also a matter which has to considered by the Magistrate after verifying the relevant documents.

Since the contentions now advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all matters which can be raised before the learned Magistrate where the case has been pending for the last almost nine years, I am of the view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. need not be invoked to quash the proceedings.

Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the Jurisdictional Forum, this Criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.