CRL.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **CRL.MC.NO.2245 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.615/2018 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:** - **1 ALAN PAUL, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.PAUL.K.P., KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, MELOOR.P.O, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR.** - **2 RINTO CHERIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, PERAMBRA.P.O., THRISSUR.** - **3 RAJATH JACOB, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JAIN JACOB, MANALIL HOUSE, OLARI, THRISSUR.** - **4 PAUL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PYLOTH, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, MELUR.P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR.** - **5 LEENA PAUL, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.PAUL.K.P., W/O.PAUL.K.P., KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, MELUR.P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV,SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.D.FEROZE** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.615/2018 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)** - **2 P.VARGHESE BABY, AGED 53 YEARS, PELLISSERY HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.** **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R2. ADVS. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE,SMT.V.T.LITHA, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM,SMT.K.R.MONISHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2020 ## O R D E R The prayer in the afore captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows: _“.........to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur District, against the petitioners, as it is an abuse of process of court.”_ 2. Heard Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel instructed and assisted by Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (accused persons), Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent (State) and Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent (defacto complainant). 3. The petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 5 among the 5 accused arrayed in the impugned Anx.I FIR in Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 354, 506 & 34 of the IPC and Secs.66C, 67A & 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pursuant to the Anx.V private criminal complaint dated 13.7.2018 filed by the 2[nd] respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..3.. Thrissur, in which the learned Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. had directed the Police to register a crime and conduct investigation to the allegations raised thereof. 4. The brief of the prosecution case is that, A-1 was having a love affair with the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent defacto complainant and he had attempted to have physical relationship with her and had taken some obscene and intimate photographs and had threatened that the same would be published in social media etc. Earlier on the basis of the complaint of the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent, Anx.II Crime No.1345/2017 of Thrissur East Police Station was registered for the very same offences, in which A-1, A-4 & A-5 herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 3 among the 3 accused in the said Anx.II crime. Pursuant to Anx.VI private criminal complaint dated 18.7.2017 filed by the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thrissur, the learned Magistrate had directed the Police to register a crime and conduct investigation to the allegations raised thereof. 5. It appears that the entire disputes between A-1 herein Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..4.. and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent settled to the satisfaction of both sides, and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent had herself voluntarily filed affidavit before this Court as Anx.IV affidavit dated 21.7.2017 in Anx.III Crl.M.C.No.5509/2017 filed by the accused therein, seeking quashment of impugned criminal proceedings in which she has stated that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled and that the allegations were made on the basis of misunderstandings, and that though she had earlier married A-1 herein, later on the basis of settlement the marital relationship between A-1 and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent had been dissolved, and that the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent have no objection whatsoever for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings as against the accused therein. 6. This Court as per Anx.III order dated 29.8.2017 had finally disposed of Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017 taking note of the said affidavit as per Anx.IV herein filed by the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent, and had thus quashed the impugned criminal proceedings at Anxs.II & VI herein. It is thereafter that the impugned Anx.V private criminal complaint is filed by the Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..5.. 2[nd] respondent who is the father of the previous complainant, which has now led to Anx.I FIR etc. 7. As noted above, the five petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 5 among the 5 accused arrayed in Anx.I Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 354, 506 & 34 of the IPC and Secs.66C, 67A & 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The alleged incidents are said to have taken place for the period from 23.6.2016 to 2.6.2018. Earlier the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) had married the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent, who was the complainant in Anxs.II & VI criminal proceedings which have been quashed by this Court as per Anx.III order on the basis of Anx.IV affidavit sworn to by the said lady. Later the marital relationship between A-1 herein and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent was dissolved as can be seen from the details given in Anx.IV affidavit. The present defacto complainant in the instant case is the father of the divorced wife of the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1). In the instant impugned Anx.I Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, there are five accused persons Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..6.. wherein A-4 & A-5 are the father and mother respectively of A-1 and A-2 & A-3 herein are the friends of A-1. 8. As noted herein above, A-1, A-4 & A-5 herein were earlier arrayed as A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively in the previous Anx.II Crime No.1345/2017 of the same Police Station, which was quashed by this Court as per Anx.III order. The 1[st] petitioner herein had married the 2[nd] respondent's daughter. According to him, his marriage with the 2[nd] respondent's daughter was solemnized without the knowledge and consent of the parents of said lady. The 1[st] petitioner's wife had initially given a complaint before the Thrissur East Police Station, alleging that he, as if he was in love with her, had abused her sexually and had taken her naked photographs and had threatened to post it in e-mail and facebook, and based on said black mail and intimidation so exerted by A-1 herein, she was compelled to get her marriage solemnized with A-1 herein before the statutory Marriage Registrar, and that she was forcefully taken in a car to the Marriage Registrar at Mundoor, who had registered her marriage without her consent and later the couple did not even entered into conjugal relationship and that A-1 Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..7.. had extracted lot of money from her etc. 9. The abovesaid allegations are the subject matter of Anx.VI complaint and Anx.II Crime No.1345/2017 of Thrissur East Police Station, in which only 3 persons were arrayed as accused therein, namely A-1 herein, A-4 herein & A-5 herein. Later the 3 accused persons in Anx.II FIR had approached this Court by filing Anx.III Crl.M.C.No. 5509/2017 seeking quashment of impugned criminal proceedings, in which the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent has been arrayed as R-2 therein. The daughter of the 2[nd] respondent herein had filed Anx.IV affidavit dated 21.7.2017 stating that, the entire issues between the said parties have been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides and that the alleged mobile phones in question have already been destroyed, and that the documents, datas, photos etc are not been transferred to anybody, and that the allegations have been made by her out of misunderstandings and that the marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent herein (R-2 therein) has already been dissolved on 24.7.2017 by the judgment and decree of the Family Court concerned on the Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..8.. basis of joint petition filed by the said spouses, and that the 2[nd] respondent therein has no surviving grievances as against the accused persons therein, and that she has no objections whatsoever for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings in view of abovesaid extenuating circumstances etc. 10. This Court after entertaining Anx.III Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017 in which the 2[nd] respondent therein (the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent herein) was represented through a learned advocate and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners therein, the learned Prosecutor as well as the learned advocate appearing for R-2 therein and being fully satisfied about the genuineness of the averments made by the 2[nd] respondent therein in Anx.IV affidavit, had quashed the impugned criminal proceedings as per Anx.III order dated 29.8.2017 in Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017 etc. 11. It appears that, the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent have dissolved their marital relationship on the basis of mutual consent and on the basis of judgment and decree rendered by the Family Court on 24.7.2017, Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..9.. and this Court is also apprised that the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent had subsequently married another person and she is now living abroad. Further, according to the petitioners, the 1[st] petitioner had left India to Dubai on 1.2.2018 and thereafter came back to India through Goa Airport on 5.10.2019 and thereafter left India to Dubai on 9.10.2019 and thereafter he has never came to India, more so particularly the flight restrictions imposed since the COVID-19 pandemic issues, and further that these aspects can be seen from Anx.VII passport entries of the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) and that A-1 has been in Dubai in connection with his employment since 1.2.2018 as aforestated. 12. After rendering of Anx.III final order dated 29.8.2017 in Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017, the 2[nd] respondent herein has filed Anx.V private criminal complaint dated 13.7.2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, in which accused 1 to 3 in Anx.II crime have been arrayed as accused 1, 4 & 5 respectively, and accused 2 & 3 are alleged to be the close friends of A-1 etc. The learned Magistrate has forwarded the said complaint to the police authorities in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.156(3) of Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..10.. the Cr.P.C. and consequently the impugned Anx.I Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Police Station, has been registered on 24.7.2018 as against the five accused persons herein for the abovesaid very same offences in question. 13. It is alleged in Anx.V private criminal complaint and Anx.I FIR in Crime No.615/2018 that, the marriage between the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent herein (R-2 in Anx.III Crl.M.C. & defacto complainant in Anx.II FIR) by external coercion and force on her, and that when they were residing together he had taken her obscene naked pictures and the accused persons thereafter had constantly threatened the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent that they would divulge the obscene pictures and that they would propagate it in social media etc. The alleged period of occurrence of Anx.I crime is from 23.6.2016 to 2.6.2018. A close reading of allegations in Anx.I FIR and Anx.V private criminal complaint on the one hand with the allegations in Anx.II FIR and Anx.VI private criminal complaint on the other hand would disclose that, there appears to be a rehash of the versions earlier projected. That, the present allegations in the new Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..11.. FIR appears to be more or less rehash of the versions earlier projected in Anx.II FIR. The daughter of the 2[nd] respondent had voluntarily filed an affidavit before this Court as per Anx.IV dated 21.7.2017 that, as a matter of fact she was in close relationship with the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1) for the period in question, etc. She has no case that her marriage with A-1 was conducted on the basis of coercion and force or out of any threat or intimidation. Moreover the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent has categorically stated in Anx.IV affidavit filed before this Court that, the issues arose out of misunderstandings between the parties and the entire issues between them have been solved to the best of their satisfaction, and that she has no objection whatsoever for the quashment of impugned criminal proceedings at Anx.II herein. Even now, the 2[nd] respondent has no case that Anx.IV affidavit was filed by his daughter out of any threat, force or coercion. Anx.IV affidavit is attested before a notary public on 21.7.2017. A learned advocate of this Court had duly represented the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent in Anx.III Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017. Even at the time ofAnx.III final order dated 29.8.2017, or at any point of time Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..12.. thereafter has the 2[nd] respondent made any allegation that Anx.IV affidavit was filed by his daughter on account of any threat or coercion, or that the facts stated therein has been made by her only on account of any threat or coercion made by any persons. The 2[nd] respondent has no case that Anx.III final order was obtained on the basis of any coercion or fraud. This Court after entertaining Anx.III Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017 in which the 2[nd] respondent therein (the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent herein) was represented through a learned advocate and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners therein, the learned Prosecutor as well as the learned advocate appearing for R- 2 therein and being fully satisfied about the genuineness of the averments made by the 2[nd] respondent therein in Anx.IV affidavit, had quashed the impugned criminal proceedings at Anx.II herein. 14. However, on a comparison of the old and new allegations, it is seen that an additional case is set up in Anx.V private criminal complaint that on 2.6.2018, the accused persons had threatened the 2[nd] respondent herein that they are having obscene pictures of his daughter and they would divulge the same Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..13.. and that the 2[nd] respondent herein had given Rs.40,000/- to Sri.Jerry, the advocate of the accused on 2.6.2018 etc. Some vague and generalized allegations have been made in para 7 of Anx.V complaint that on 23.6.2016, all the accused persons had come to the 2[nd] respondent's house and threatened him and thereafter on 1.6.2018 & 2.6.2018 they had threatened him that the obscene pictures of his daughter will be spread in the social media etc. The Investigating Officer in this case has filed a statement dated 9.3.2020 wherein it has been _inter alia_ averred in para 9 that the statement of the defacto complainant was recorded on 24.8.2019 in which R-2 has alleged that he was threatened by A-1 and that he was forced to give Rs.40,000/- to one Sri.Jerry, the advocate of accused on 2.6.2018. The I.O. has further stated that, on verification of the case file it is revealed that R-2 herein has not made any allegation in his Anx.V private criminal complaint dated 13.7.2018 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, about any such incidents. Further in para 10, the I.O.has stated that, CCTV footage submitted by the defacto complainant was examined and it was found that, one person was coming to the shop of the defacto Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..14.. complainant and after some conversation, he had received money from R-2 and both of them shook hands each other and thereafter, that person had gone out of the shop, and no element of threat of any kind is seen in the footage. 15. This Court had requested the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions from the Investigating Officer concerned in this case, and when the matter had taken up for consideration on the previous occasion as well as today, the learned Public Prosecutor had stated on the basis of instructions of the Investigating Officer that, the investigation so far conducted does not disclose any serious offences in this case and that the abovesaid new version given by the 2[nd] respondent in his statement recorded by the I.O. was never raised by him in Anx.V private criminal complaint and further that, on examination of CCTV footages, the same does not show any element of threat or coercion, and what is seen that one person had entered the shop room of R-2 and after some conversation said person had received money from R-2 and both of them had shook hands with eachother and thereafter the person had gone out of the shop. Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..15.. 16. The abovesaid aspects should also be seen in the light of the specific case of the the 1[st] petitioner that he had left India to Dubai on 1.2.2018 and thereafter came back to India through Goa Airport on 5.10.2019 and thereafter left India to Dubai on 9.10.2019 and thereafter he has never came to India, and that he was never in India or in Kerala for the period from 2.2.2018 to 4.10.2018 and that the allegation that he had personally gone either to the residence or the shop room of the 2[nd] respondent and threatened him, etc are absolutely false and fictitious, and has been made only out of malicious and oblique considerations to put the petitioners to unnecessary harm. 17. Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, it is indisputable fact that the 1[st] petitioner (A-1) had married the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent without the consent of the 2[nd] respondent herein, and thereafter the 2[nd] respondent had taken it as a matter of prestige as he felt that the petitioner does not belong to the social and economic class of the 2[nd] respondent, and therefore the 2[nd] respondent felt humiliated in the society on account of the marriage of his Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..16.. daughter with the 1[st] petitioner, and it is only on this account that the 2[nd] respondent has persistently made false and malicious allegations against the petitioners to book them for some offences and to put them to harm. 18. After hearing both sides it is seen that, the very same allegations was earlier made by the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent which resulted in Anx.VI private criminal complaint and Anx.II FIR. Later, the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent had voluntarily sworn to Anx.IV affidavit dated 21.7.2017 before this Court and that too attested before a notary public, wherein she has stated that she was having a close friendship with A-1, and she has no case in the said affidavit that her marriage with the 1[st] petitioner was solemnized before the Marriage Registrar on account of threat and coercion exerted by the 1[st] petitioner herein and his friends and family members, as alleged by her earlier. On the other hand, it is stated that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and the marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent has also been dissolved by judgment and decree of the Family Court on the basis of mutual Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..17.. consent of both spouses, etc. Even now, the 2[nd] respondent has no case that the facts stated by his daughter in Anx.IV affidavit filed before this Court are false or that the averments in the said affidavit were made by her only on the basis of threat and coercion exerted on her by the petitioners or their men. Even now, the 2[nd] respondent has no case that Anx.III order was issued by this Court on the basis of her affidavit obtained by threat and coercion exerted on her by the petitioners or their men. On the other hand this Court had heard not only the advocate for the accused persons as well as the learned Prosecutor but also the learned advocate appearing for the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent, which resulted in Anx.III final order, wherein this Court found that the case could be quashed on the basis of stand taken by the 2[nd] respondent in Anx.IV affidavit and accordingly quashed the entire criminal proceedings. 19. The present allegations made by the 2[nd] respondent almost rehash of the previous allegations, except certain minor modifications here and there. The new allegations made in para 7 of Anx.V complaint is that, on 23.6.2016 all the accused persons had come to the 2[nd] respondent's house and threatened him and Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..18.. thereafter on 1.6.2018 & 2.6.2018 they had threatened him that the obscene pictures of his daughter will be spread in the social media etc The Investigating Officer himself has stated through the Public Prosecutor after meticulous investigation that no serious commission of any offence is made out in the abovesaid investigation, and that further a new allegation has been put up by the 2[nd] respondent in the statement given by him before the I.O. on 24.8.2019 that, he was threatened by the 1[st] accused and he was forced to give Rs.40,000/- etc. If as a matter of fact, the said incident which occurred on 2.6.2018 was actually true and certainly nothing prevented the 2[nd] respondent from having made specific allegations in that regard in Anx.V private criminal complaint filed by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thrissur, on 30.7.2018. Further the Investigating Officer has also found on examination of CCTV footages that there is no element of threat or coercion seen therefrom, and what is seen is that one person had entered the shop room of R-2 and after some conversation said person had received money from R-2 and both of them had shook hands with each other and thereafter the person Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..19.. had gone out of the shop. Therefore, even the so called additional allegations now put forward appears to be on extremely feeble factual foundation without any basis. Therefore, the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have made out a very strong probable case that the allegations now again made in Anx.V private criminal complaint and Anx.I FIR is only on account of extraneous and oblique considerations, as the earlier marriage between the 1[st] petitioner and the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent was solemnized without the consent and knowledge of the 2[nd] respondent. 20. Therefore, going by the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is constrained to take the view that the impugned criminal proceedings is substantially a rehash of the previous allegations, and the impugned criminal proceedings in that regard was later terminated by this Court, and the present resurrection of allegations appears to have been made only on account of extraneous and oblique considerations and that the petitioners have made out a strong case in that regard. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case _**Shakson Belthissor v. State**_ Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..20.. _**of Kerala & another**_ reported in _**(2009) 14 SCC 466**_ that where a complaint is found to be vexatious or frivolous or oppressive, the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C could befittingly exercised to quash such impugned criminal proceedings. In the case _**State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew**_ reported in _**(2004) 8 SCC 40**_ , the Apex Court has held that the impugned criminal proceedings can be quashed where the complaint involves malafides. In the case _**Lambodaran Nair v. State of Kerala**_ reported in _**2003 (1) KLT SN 115**_ it has been held by the Apex Court that the power under Sec.482 Cr.PC can be exercised where criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides or to wreck personal vengeance. In the case _**Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand**_ reported in _**(2012) 12 SCC 72,**_ the Supreme Court has categorically held that if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuance of a prosecution will lead to abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, the power under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised and the proceedings must be quashed. 21. It appears that, marriage of the 1[st] petitioner with the Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..21.. daughter of the 2[nd] respondent was solemnized without the consent, knowledge and participation of the 2[nd] respondent and his family members. Now, the entire disputes between the said persons have been resolved, and the parties have dissolved the marital relationship on the basis of judgment and decree rendered by the Family Court, and this Court has acted upon Anx.IV affidavit and quashed the impugned criminal proceedings at Anx.II as can be seen from Anx.III final order dated 29.8.2017 rendered in Crl.M.C. No. 5509/2017. The spouses have parted their ways. It appears that the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent has subsequently remarried and is now settled abroad. The 1[st] petitioner is a young man hardly aged 24 years and he has left India for employment long ago. 22. After evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the stand of the investigating agency as noted herein above, this Court is of the considered view that further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would be nothing but a grave abuse of the process of court and therefore, the said proceedings are liable for interdiction at the hands of this Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..22.. Court in exercise of the inherent extra ordinary powers saved by Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. as otherwise there will be great miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Anx.I FIR in Crime No.615/2018 of Thrissur East Town Police Station as against all the five accused persons arrayed therein and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as against the five petitioners herein will stand quashed and set aside. 23. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thrissur, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG Crl.M.C. No. 2245 of 2019 ..23.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.615/18 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT.** ## **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.1345/17 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION** ## **ANNEXURE III** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5509/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT** **ANNEXURE IV** **TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/07/2017 SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.1345/17 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION**