ANSARI SAINULABUDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in a prosecution interalia under Sections 308 and 452 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against them is that they trespassed into a bar hotel and indulged in wanton acts of mischief causing huge loss to the owner of the bar hotel. It is further alleged that they, in furtherance of their common intention attempted to cause hurt to the victim by throwing a garden pot on the head of the victim which missed the mark fortunately and thereby further graver consequences were avoided. Investigation was conducted by the police. Final report was filed. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions. The accused appeared before the court of Sessions also. Accused were heard and charges were framed interalia under Sections 308 and 452 read with 34 I.P.C. The matter stood posted for trial. On the eve of the trial, the petitioners have come to this court with this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

(2.) What is the prayer? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charges have been improperly and unfairly framed against them under Sections 308 and 452 I.P.C. The framing of charge under Section 308 I.P.C is totally unjustified and that error committed by the court below compels the petitioner now to stand trial before the Assistant Sessions Court. If charges were not framed under Section 308 I.P.C., it would have been sufficient if the petitioner faced charges before the learned Magistrate. He further contends that, at any rate, the allegations do not constitute the offences alleged under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C.

(3.) The petitioners obviously had not chosen to come before this court earlier accepting the allegations levelled against them and in the hope that they can meet the charges under Sections 308 and 452 I.P.C. Otherwise, there is no explanation whatsoever for the petitioners not coming to this court at the stage of filing of the final report, at the stage of committal of the case or even after the framing of charges. On the eve of the date fixed for trial, the petitioners have rushed to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It must also be noted that an order framing charges is a revisable order and the petitioner could certainly have preferred a revision against the order framing the charges.