CRL.MC No. 1525 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

CRMC.NO.1525/2012APPENDIXPETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:ANNEX A1COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRLMP 1183/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR.ANNEX A2COPY OF THE FIR NO.406/2012 DATED 16/03/2012 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION.ANNEX A3COPY OF THE COMPALINT DATED 06/03/2012 TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOROF POLICE.RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A.TO.JUDGEsts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.1525 OF 2012-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28th day of May, 2012ORDERPetitioners are the accused in Crime No.406/2012 of Pandalam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections420, 294 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The secondrespondent filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate, Adoor against the petitioners imputing offencesstated above, which was referred for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On such reference, Annexure A2 F.I.R wasregistered.

Petitioners seek to quash Annexure A2 F.I.R contendingthat the allegations raised in the complaint imputing variousoffences against them are false and baseless. The learned counselfor the petitioner, adverting to Annexure A3, copy of the petition, which is purported to have been filed by the complainant beforelodging her complaint to the Magistrate, contends that very manyallegations raised in Annexure A1 complaint are not stated in Annexure A3. Annexure A3 is stated to be a petition filed beforethe Circle Inspector or Police Pandalam. Adverting to theallegations and imputations made in Annexure A1 complaint, it isalso contended that some of the offences raised are barred by Crl.M.C No.1525/20122limitation and even according to the complainant money transactionbetween the parties took place three years ago. After looking intothe complaint with reference to the submissions made by the counseland taking note that an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPCis also imputed against the petitioners, I find, it is too early to giveany consideration to the challenges now set forth to assail acomplaint which has been sent sent by the police for investigation. No ground has been made out by the petitioner to hold that the filingof the complaint, Annexure A1, and the investigation proceededthereof by orders of the Magistrate is an abuse of process of thecourt. Petition is dismissed. Sd/-vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE//True Copy//P.A to Judge