Gadhadharan vs Razhil
2021 Latest Caselaw 5746 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                      Crl.MC.No.1867 OF 2013(B)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1150/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                  OF FIRST CLASS -IV,KOZHIKODE


PETITIONER:

               GADHADHARAN
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O.P.BHANUPRAKASH, RESIDING AT 3/604,
               MARUPURAM LANE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE 673 011.

               BY ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO

RESPONDENTS:

      1        RAZHIL
               AGED 47 YEARS,
               S/O.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT CHELSEA HOUSE,
               VATTOTHPARAMBA, NADAKKAVU P.O, WEST NADAKKAVU,
               KOZHIKODE.

      2        SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

      3        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

               R1 BY ADV. SHRI.ANIL KUMAR K.P.
               R2 & R3 SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
       Crl.MC.No.1867 OF 2013(B)
                                            2


                                  ORDER

Challenging the final report submitted under

Sections 447, 506 (1) 294(b), 427 IPC, the accused

came up, who is a practicing lawyer, on the ground

that it is only a false complaint. The legal

position settled by this Court in Chacko George v.

State of Kerala (1968 KLT 219) brought to the

notice of this Court. Existence of valid defence

would not by itself be a sufficient ground to quash

the proceedings. At the most, the same may be a

valid defence available to the party concerned.

But it is a fit case wherein the party can exhaust

the remedy by maintaining a discharge application.

Personal appearance of the accused shall not be

insisted till that time.

Without prejudice to the said right, the

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV Crl.MC.No.1867 OF 2013(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR.

ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND RECORDED ON 23.08.2012.

ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF NARENDRAN WHO IS NAMED AS THE ONLY WITNESS IN THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE