D. Madhu v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/4TH ASHADHA, 1935`** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1550 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.633/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. CRIME NO. 238/2010 OF CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT.** **................** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **D.MADHU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.V.DEMIANOSE, RETIRED COMMANDANT, RAPID RESCUE RESPONSE FORCE, PANDIKADU, MALAPPURAM.** **BY SRI.M.R. RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM).** **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2013, ALONG WITH Crl.MC. No.1553 OF 2013 AND Crl.MC. No.2311 OF 2013, THE COURT ON 25-06-2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1550 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** - **ANNEXURE-A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.238/2010 REGISTERED BY CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE.** - **ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/06/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE BEFORE THE JFMC, VADAKANCHERY AS C.C.633/2012.** - **ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.238/2010 FILED BY CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE BEFORE THE JFMC, VADAKANCHERY.** - **ANNEXURE-A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER SAND ACT IN CRIME NO.553/10 FILED BY CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE BEFORE THE JFMC, VADAKANCHERY.** - **ANNEXURE-A5: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER SAND ACT IN CRIME NO.145/2012 FILED BY CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE BEFORE THE JFMC, VADAKANCHERY.** - **ANNEXURE-A6: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.263/2012/HOME DATED 28/01/2012.** - **ANNEXURE-A7: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B3-9020/11 DATED 22/02/2012 ISSUED BY THE SDM, THRISSUR.** - **ANNEXURE-A8: A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 15.05.2012 IN O.A.132/2012 OF THE HON'BLE CAT.** - **ANNEXURE-A9: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRITY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ON 30.05.2012.** - **ANNEXURE-A10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.07.2012 ISSUED BY UPSC TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE-A11: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 27.07.2012 FORWARDED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO UPSC.** - **ANNEXURE-A12: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE UPSC TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 2311, 1550 & 1553 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2013** ## **O R D E R** As all the above Crl.M.Cs. are filed by one and the same person, who is one of the accused in Crime Nos.237 and 238 of 2010 of the Cheruthuruthi Police Station based upon which respectively C.C.Nos.393 of 2012 and 633 of 2012 are instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery and the respondents in all the above petitions are more or less the same and as the facts and circumstances in the case and question of law involved are identical, the above three CrlM.Cs. are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.2311 of 2013 is preferred challenging the order dated 1.6.2013 in CMP No.5418 of 2013 in C.C.No.633 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry since the petitioner is aggrieved by the above order as the court below decined his request under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.633 of 2012 for a CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** discharge from the above case. 3. Whereas, the prayer in Crl.M.C.Nos.1550 and 1553 of 2013 is to quash the final reports in Crime No.238 of 2010 in C.C.No.633 of 2012 and Crime No.237 of 2010 in C.C.No.393 of 2012 and all further proceedings in the above cases pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery. 4. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the allegations against the accused, including the petitioner herein, who is the third accused in C.C.No.633 of 2012, which is instituted upon Annexure A3 final report in Crime No.238 of 2010 of the Cheruthuruthi Police Station as well as in C.C.No.393 of 2012 which is instituted upon on the basis of Annexure A3 report in Crime No.237 of 2010 of the Cheruthuruthi Police Station are one and the same including the date, time, place of occurrence and also the overt act alleged and the only difference is with respect to the registration number of the vehicle allegedly involved in the crime. 5. The allegation in the above cases is that on 28.5.2010, at 11 p.m., the S.I.of Police, Cheruthuruthi Police Station received an information to CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the effect that the local people of the area blocked and restrained two tipper lorries, containing river sand, which was unauthorisedly and illegally taken from Painkulam Smasanam Kadavu of Bharathapuzha. Thus, according to the Sub Inspector, he along with P.C.5237 Aju.T.Joseph and P.C.3665 Tomy went to the place of occurrence and reached there at 23.30 hours and at that time, he had seen certain named persons with whom he has prior acquaintance viz., Krishnakumar, Rajesh Painkulam, Radhakrishnan and about ten other persons and in front of them, two tipper lorries bearing Regn.No.KL-07N-5002 and KL-02D-4204 respectively filled up with river sand. It is recorded in the F.I.statement given by the said Sub Inspector of Cheruthuruthi Police Station that on his enquiry with the locals, it was revealed that at about 9.30 p.m. they have seen a Police vehicle bearing Regn.No. KL-01-AH-26 Bolero Police jeep parked on the said route leading to smasanam kadavu and there were three persons in that police jeep of whom, one has worn the police uniform and according to the informant, when the local people reached the kadavu, they had seen sand being loaded in the above said tipper lorries and they have watched the CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** said activities by hiding themselves and at about 10.30 p.m., they saw the said police jeep with three persons inside which is followed by the above tipper lorries loaded with full of sand coming from the kadavu and on doubt, the lorries were restrained and at that time, the jeep which was in front of the tipper lorries was taken off and accordingly, the said persons informed the Police. According to the informant, thereafter, he inspected the tipper lorries which were filled with river sand and on enquiry with the drivers of the said vehicle as to whether he has got any pass or authority, he replied negatively. It is also the case of the de facto complainant, that the said driver, on further questioning, replied that the said sand is from the smasanam kadavu of Bharathapuzha and when they were asked as to under whose instruction, they took the sand, they replied that it was done as per the instruction of one Kunjumohammed, who is the owner of the said tipper lorries and the Police jeep bearing Regn.No.KL-01-AH-26 has piloted the said vehicles. He had recorded the name of driver of the vehicle KL-2D-4204 as Saidalavi and KL-7-N-5002 as Abdul Nazar. Thus, according to the informant, on apprising the driver about the wrong CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** committed by him, he was arrested at about 23.40 hours and seized the lorries with the sand as per mahazar and thereafter, he returned to the Police Station at about 1.15 a.m. on 29.5.2010 and registered two crimes ie., Nos.238 and 237 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 20,21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Act only'). However, initially, the petitioner was not an accused, but subsequently, the investigating agency filed a report to add the petitioner in the array of the accused and thus, the petitioner is arrayed as third accused in the above case. Subsequently, another person is also arrayed in the above two cases as accused No.4. Thus, finally, on completing the investigation, separate report is seen filed in both the above crime cases which are respectively marked in the above two MCs. In Annexure A3, in both the cases there are altogether four accused and the offences complained of are under Sections 20 and 21 of the above Act and Section 201 of I.P.C. On receiving the said report, the court took cognizance and thus instituted the above calendar cases in the trial court viz., JFCM Court, Wadakkanchery. The above cases CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and proceedings therein are under challenge in these petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above Crl.M.Cs. and Sri. Rajesh Vijayan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. Advocate Sri.M.Rajendran Nair, the learned Senior counsel, during his persuasive argument, emphatically submitted that the above crime cases and consequent proceedings in the court below are instituted due to official and political rivalries with oblique motive to deny the selection to the petitioner for conferring I.P.S. It is also pointed out that though the petitioner was included in the selection list as number one, he was not conferred IPS so far, though the other persons below his rank in the list had been already conferred with IPS as early as in December,2011. In order to substantiate the said fact, it is pointed out that in the above two crimes, which were registered on 29.5.2010, the F.I.R. was forwarded to the court only on 31.5.2010 and during that period, there were deliberations to make the petitioner as accused, due to the above oblique CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** motive and it is with that intention, deliberately mentioned the presence of the petitioner's official vehicle mentioned in the F.I.R. Annexure A1. Thus, as part of such a conspiracy, according to the learned counsel, a report was filed in the court below to implicate the petitioner in the above case and such a report is produced along with the MC as Annexure A2. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Police selected the BJP leaders of the locality and got recorded their statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., on 21.7.2010 and on 26.7.2010 which, according to him, is an unusual and extraordinary procedure adopted in a case where the only allegation is about contravention of the above Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that deviating from the usual procedure adopted by the Cheruthuruthi Police Station in filing complaint with respect to the cases covered under the provisions of the above Act, in the present case, reports are filed. To substantiate the above contention, Annexures A4 and A5 are produced, which would show that in Crime Nos.553 of 2010 and 145 of 2012 of the same Police Station, only complaints are filed. CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 8. Another important contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that connected with the above allegation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range was appointed as Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the said authority filed an enquiry report stating that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved and on filing such report to the Government, the Government as per its order i.e, GO(Rt)No.263/2012/Home dated 28.1.2012 which is produced as Annexure A6 (in Crl.M.C.No.1553 of 2013)exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. According to the learned counsel, it is specifically found in the above Government Order that the petitioner, was deliberately implicated in the said case. 9. Another material heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Annexure A7 (in Crl.M.C.No.1553 of 2013), which is a copy of the proceedings No.B3-9020/11 dated 22.2.2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur by which the said authority released two lorries with sand to its owner whereby the confiscation authority under the above Act found that transportation of sand was with valid pass. CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** According to the learned counsel, there is no valid and proper challenge against the above finding and thus, the same became final. Annexure A8 is also another material pressed into service by the learned counsel to show the integrity of the petitioner. Thus, in substance, the submission of the learned Senior counsel is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in both the above crimes at the instance of the rivals of the petitioner in the service to deny his selection to confer IPS and the unrebuttable facts and materials show that no offence would lie against the petitioner. 10. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Police Department and the Government are bound to follow the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in **Ismayil & Ors.** v. **State of Kerala** [2010(3) KHC 677] and therefore, in the present case, the prosecution ought to have filed a complaint as in the case of Anenxures A4 and A5, but in the present case, they preferred a report in the above two **Ismail's case** . crimes overlooking the guidelines and directions issued in It is also the submission of the learned counsel that though a learned Single Judge of this Court made a reference order dated 13.2.2013 in CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** certain MCs., the same is not relevant and applicable in the case of the petitioner and the matter is governed by the decision in Ismail's case, especially when the question referred to is with respect to the decision given in **Sujith** v. **State of Kerala** [2012(2) KLT 547]. So according to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., ought to have acquitted the petitioner/accused and therefore, the order impugned in Crl.MC.No.2311 of 2013 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get an acquittal in C.C.No.633 of 2012 pending before the court below. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions and sticking on the statement filed in Crl.M.C.No.1550 of 2013 vehemently submitted that the factual inputs supported by the materials relied on by the prosecution, which are incorporated in Annexure A3 report, show the part played by the petitioner in the commission of the above offence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the presence of the police vehicle allotted to the petitioner at the relevant and material time is borne out from the first record came into existence i.e., the F.I.statement CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and Anenxure A1 FIR, which are contemporary in nature. After taking me through the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the place of occurrence is near to Smasanam kadavu in Bharathapuzha from where nobody is permitted to dig river sand and no passes are being issued for the same with respect to Smasanam kadavu. But the two tipper lorries involved in the above cases are found filled up with river sand near at Smasanam kadavu for which the driver of the vehicle has no valid pass. It is also the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that though the first accused was in possession of a valid pass to take sand from the Bharathapuzha, it was not meant for taking sand from Smasanam Kadavu. It is also the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the lame excuse given by the first accused/driver is that the sand, which was detected, is the sand which was loaded in the lorry on the basis of the valid pass given to him, but, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the said sand was taken at 8.30 a.m. on 28.5.2010 and there is no justifiable explanation for remaining the lorries with the sand at 9.30 p.m. The story put forward by the first CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** accused and the petitioner is that the sand loaded in the lorry at 8.30 a.m. on the basis of the valid pass could not be transported due to the break down of the said vehicle and according to the learned Public Prosecutor, such story cannot be accepted since the materials would show that the very same accused in the very same lorry loaded sand at 2 p.m. on the same day, that is after loading sand at 8.30 a.m. by using the so called valid pass. So, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, these are the facts to be proved and appreciated during the trial and no interference is warranted at this stage. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur released the vehicle and the sand without hearing the prosecution agency to substantiate its allegation and therefore, such order of the SDM cannot be a ground to interfere with the proceedings pending against the petitioner, especially when they have already initiated disciplinary proceedings or steps against the SDM, Thrissur. Similarly, it is contended that the findings of the Government or the disciplinary officer connected with the departmental enquiry have no CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** bearing in a criminal case pending before the courts. So, the materials referred to and relied on by the petitioner, exonerating him from charges is not a ground to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, all the above three MCs. are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.M.R.Rajendran Nair for the petitioner and Sri.Rajesh Vijayan, the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the materials referred to above and have gone through the decisions cited supra. 14. In the light of the rival pleadings and in the light of the materials referred to above, the only question to be decided is whether the continuation of the proceedings in the above C.Cs. against the petitioner pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court will amount to an abuse of process of court and whether the same will result in miscarriage of justice. 15. As I indicated earlier, one of the contentions raised by the CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** learned senior counsel is that the above two crimes are registered with oblique motive at the instance of his rivalries to deny him selection to confer I.P.S. and to substantiate such contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Government Order by which the Government exonerated the petitioner from all charges formulated in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, by the proceedings of the SDM, the said authority released the vehicles with river sand in question holding that no confiscation proceedings would lie as the vehicles were having valid passes and therefore, the substrata of the prosecution allegation goes. 16. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the pass which was in possession of the first accused is not a pass for loading and transporting the same on 28.5.2010 from the Smasanam kadavu and the findings of the SDM vide Annexure A6 is incorrect. 17. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the petitioner is a retired Superintendent of Police(Non IPS). The main allegation against CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the petitioner is that he along with other two persons in an official Police jeep allotted to him were found at the place of occurrence and he, in the said vehicle, piloted the tipper lorries in which the river sand was filled unauthorisedly and illegally. I have carefully perused Annexure A1 FIR wherein there is no mention about the name of the petitioner or about his description so as to book him as an accused in the above case. Suffice to say, the police vehicle alleged to have allotted to the petitioner is not seized from the place of occurrence. In the F.I.statement, it is stated that altogether there were three persons in the police jeep, the identity of all the above persons are not seen properly enquired into. It appears that the petitioner is implicated in the above crime solely on the basis of the allegation that the Police Jeep allotted to him was found at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has no case that other than the driver, the petitioner alone was there in the said vehicle. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that altogether three persons were in the jeep and no charge witness has stated that the petitioner was seen. Therefore, the identity of the petitioner himself connected with the alleged crime is CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** doubtful. From the records, it appears to me that the petitioner is not seen arrested during the investigation and therefore, there is no possibility for the personal presence or availability of the petitioner during the investigation to confirm the identity of the petitioner by the witnesses, those who claimed to have seen the persons in the jeep. So, to prove the presence of the petitioner and to implicate him in the crime, who is a retired Police Officer, there is no convincing material. According to me, the absence of such materials in the backdrops of the allegation raised by the petitioner that he is implicated in the case due to oblique motive, becomes relevant. 18. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the competent authority under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 by a detailed order, after verification of the records found the following facts:- _“1. The respondents already produced sand pass issued by Competent Authorities for transportation of sand in the above vehicles as the day of its seizure._ _2. The permits were not time expired at the time of seizure._ CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _3. Proper explanation has been given for the delay occurred in the transportation._ _4. The ground for confiscating the vehicle KL-07N-5002, as mentioned in the Proceedings read as first paper above, is that the party did not made any attempt to get extended the time mentioned in the pass. The time mentioned in the pass is only the time of loading the vehicle with sand. The respondents have admitted that sand was loaded at the time mentioned in the pass. Therefore, correction by Competent Authorities is not necessary here. Besides, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not found that the transportation was without a valid pass._ _5. The ground for confiscating the vehicle KL-02D-4204 as mentioned in the proceedings read as 2[nd] paper above, is not that the transportation was without a valid pass._ _6. As per para 8 of G.O(Rt) No.263/2012/Home dated 28.1.2012, Government are convinced that the sand taken into the custody of Police is the sand loaded with valid pass and the delay occurred in the transportation is due to the mechanical complaint of one vehicle. ”_ It is relevant to note that though there was an earlier order by the same authority to confiscate the vehicles, the District Collector by his proceedings No.B7-26705/11 dated 7.1.2012 set aside the earlier order of the S.D.M. and directed him to pass fresh orders and thus, Anexure A7 order is issued. In para 4 of the above order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has specifically found that the ground for confiscating the CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** vehicle KL-07N-5002 is that the party did not make any attempt to get extended the time mentioned in the pass and it is observed that the time mentioned in the pass is only the time of loading of the vehicle with sand and the respondents have admitted that the sand was loaded at the time mentioned in the pass. Therefore, according to the authority, the correction by the competent authorities is not necessary in the said pass. It is also found that in the earlier order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he has not found that the transportation was without a valid pass. In para 5, it is also found that the ground for confiscating the vehicle i.e.; KL-02D-4204 is not that the transportation of sand without a valid pass. Following the Government Order i.e., Annexure A6, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has also found that the sand taken into custody by the Police is the sand loaded with valid pass and the delay occurred in the transportation is due to the mechanical complaint of one vehicle. 19. Further, it is also relevant to note that as per Annexure A6 order as I indicated earlier, the Government by accepting the report of the Disciplinary Authority, who is none other than the I.G. of Police, Thrissur CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Range exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. In Annexure A6 charge also, it is specifically found that the petitioner, who is the delinquent, was deliberately included in the sand case. 20. In the light of the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is a competent authority under the above Act, it can be seen that the vehicles, which were allegedly seized in the above crime, were having valid pass for transporting river sand. Annexure A6 order of the said authority became final. So the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, to assail Annexure A6 and his attempt to convince this Court about the factual dispute i.e., the fact whether the said vehicles were having valid pass at the material time is not settled and yet to be decided in the criminal court, cannot be accepted. So the possible conclusion that can be arrived is that in the light of the above findings of the competent authority and particularly in the light of the Government Order Annexure A-6, the main plank of the prosecution case that the above lorries were not having valid pass has broken. If the main plank of the prosecution has broken, there is no meaning in directing the petitioner to face the trial CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** especially when, as I indicated earlier, there is no material to the satisfaction of this Court to prove the presence of the petitioner at the material time at the place of occurrence and to establish his identity and thereby to implicate the petitioner in the above case. In such circumstances, if the proceedings against the petitioner are allowed to continue, the same will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in miscarriage of justice. In the above circumstances, by allowing Crl.M.C.Nos.1550 and 1553 of 2013, all proceedings pending in C.C.Nos.633 and 393 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Wadakkanchery are quashed. Since the proceedings in C.C.No.633 of 2013 are quashed, no separate order is necessary in Crl.M.C.No.2311 of 2013 and the same is accordingly closed. **V.K.MOHANAN** , Judge MBS/ CRL.M.C.Nos.2311 of 2013 & connect.cases :-21-: