SUNNY, S/O JOSEPH,; UNNI, S/O MANIYACHARI,; ANNAKUTTI, W/O JOSEPH AND DIJO JOSEPH Vs. ANEESH, S/O JOSEPH AND STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 658/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thodupuzha, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 506(i), 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-E complaint filed by the first respondent on the Investigating Officer submitting Annexure-D final refer report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in the light of the findings in Annexure-D final report, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences and in any case, when learned Magistrate is bound to consider the final report also before taking cognizance on the complaint and it was not taken into consideration, the cognizance taken is to be quashed.

(2.) On hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and going through the records, I do not find it for this Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken as sought for. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As cognizance was taken on Annexure-E complaint, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses are to be examined in the presence of the Petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and based on the evidence, seek an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If Petitioners file petition to dispense with their presence at that stage, learned Magistrate need not insist for their presence.