JOSEPH Vs. ANTONY JOSEPH PAIKKADEYIL HOUSE, IRUMAPRA KARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relief is sought under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners are the accused persons in C.C.314/2011 on the file of the court of the judicial magistrate of the first class, Erattupetta. They allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs 427 and 447 of IPC read with IPC 34. They seek to quash the criminal prosecution against them.

(2.) Facts are simple and go as under : The compound wall of the property of the 1st respondent was demolished on the night of 3.4.2011. He filed a complaint before the magistrate. It was alleged in it that the compound wall was demolished by petitioners 1 and 2 and two others who could be identified by sight. The learned magistrate forwarded the complaint to the local station house officer under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. The station house officer was directed to hold an investigation. Thereupon an FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted. A report under Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C was filed. A copy of it is annex-A. The petitioners moved a Crl.M.C before this court to get annex-A final report quashed. This court dismissed the said Crl.M.C holding that there were sufficient allegations in the final report, if proved, to sustain a conviction. Annex-F is a copy of the said order. Thereafter the 3rd petitioner submitted annex-B petition to the director general of police seeking further investigation. Further investigation was conducted. A report under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C was filed. Annex-C is a copy of the said report. The request therein was to close the case as undetected. The 1st respondent moved annex-E application seeking permission under Sec.302 of Cr.P.C for conducting the prosecution by himself. The said application was allowed by the learned magistrate as per annex-D order. This court is now called upon to quash annex-D order. It is also requested to quash all further proceedings arising from annex-A final report.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 1st respondent.