PRASANTH ALIAS SANJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused in C.C.No.88 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravoor for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 324 and 379 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"). That case was registered allegedly on the information (Annexure-I, statement) given by respondent No.2. The Police after investigation have submitted Annexure-III, final report alleging that petitioners committed offences as alleged. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed Annexure-IV, private complaint against petitioners and one J.Babu, a Head Constable of Parippally Police Station alleging that he had not given a statement like Annexure-I, his statement was forged or substituted by another one and the said J.Babu committed offences punishable under Sections 201 to 204 of the Code while petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 7) committed offences under Sections 395, 379, 323, 324 and 352 read with Section 34 of the Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on that complaint, Police submitted a final report against the said J.Babu who was tried and convicted later (in C.C.No.215 of 2005). The defacto complainant then filed Annexure-V, protest complaint against petitioners. Learned counsel was not able to say whether cognizance has been taken against petitioners on the said complaint. Now the prayer is to quash Annexures-I, II and III, FIS, FIR and final report in C.C.No.88 of 2006. It is contended that trial of petitioners in C.C.No.88 of 2006 violates the rule against double geopardy and since Annexure-I, FIS was found to be forged in C.C.N.215 of 2005 where accused No.8 (J.Babu, Head Constable of Parippally Police Station) was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 201 to 204 of the Code, Annexures-I to III cannot stand and the prosecution may not be allowed to proceed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor.