Mukundan vs State of Kerala

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C No. 4460/2010 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda and they preferred this petition under Section 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash all further proceedings in the above case as the same amount to abuse of process of court.

On the basis of an incident allegedly taken place on 20.08.2010 at 11:50 a.m the second respondent herein lodged a private complaint before the court below, which on transmit to Varandarappilly Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered Crime No. 548/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 447, 427, 465, 467, 471, 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation, the petitioners herein, who are accused, trespassed upon the property of 2nd respondent, the complainant, and constructed a pathway to the property of petitioners and thereby committed waste of Rs.50,000/- by destroying the fence wall and thereby committed the said offences.

The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that though the daughter of the complainant, as per Annexure A1 document, sold 2.258 square links of land in favour of the first petitioner, under the wrong impression that the petitioners trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant, 2nd respondent herein, she filed the private complaint ultimately resulted in instituting C.C No. 4460/2010 against the petitioners and, thus, according to the learned counsel absolutely no offence is attracted against the petitioners especially when the police after investigation deleted the section of offences namely Section 447, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that on the basis of the above submission and in the light of Annexure A1 document, this court will not be justified in interfering with the proceedings pending against the petitioners since there are disputed facts. It is for the petitioners, at the time of trial, to bring necessary facts and evidence in support of their contention in the court. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the court below, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below may be directed to dispose of C.C No. 4460/2010 within a time limit to be stipulated by this court and it is pointed out that the second respondent who is CW1 is not co-operating with the trial of the case though several opportunities given to her to appear and adduce evidence.

In the light of the facts stated above, it can be seen that the alleged incident occurred on 20.08.2010 and the crime was registered in that year itself and the proceedings in the above case was instituted during the year 2010 and this court is not aware about the pendency of cases in the court below and for that reason it is not proper to direct the court below to give preference for the above case and to dispose the same within a time limit.

Under such circumstances I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, I have no hesitation to observe that if C.C No. 4460/2010 is ripe for trial the court below will expedite the proceedings in the said case, according to the work schedule of the court.