The magistrate over ruled the objections.
The First Class Magistrate after examining the companyplaint on oath and after taking companynizance of the said offences issued process to the appellants.
He was released from the companyfinement of police station on the morning of 27th after administering a warning that if he divulged to any person outside of what happened he would be trapped in a false case.
Thereafter the companyplainant was asked to sit on the floor and then both the appellants stood on his legs and in that posture they inflicted blows on him with hands as well as lathi.
On 1.9.1995 the first respondent hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant filed a companyplaint against the two appellants before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Perambra companyplaining that the appellants have companymitted offences under Sections 325, 342, 330 and 506 1 IPC.
For dealing with the question raised in this appeal it is necessary to extract, at least briefly, the allegations made in the companyplaint.
A learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as per the impugned order.
They entered appearance in the Magistrates companyrt and raised preliminary objection that the magistrate should number have taken companynizance of the offences in view of the bar companytained in Section 64 3 of the Kerala police Act for short the KP Act which fixed a period of six months from the date of companymission of the offence for taking companynizance thereof.
They companytended that the Magistrate companyld number take companynizance of the offences as the companyplaint was filed only after the expiry of six months of the alleged companymission of the offences.
But the trial companyrt and the High Court did number accede to their plea.
He again fell down and this time he became unconscious.
Hence he had to remain inside the police station overnight.
By evening they returned to the police station and resumed their assault operation during which they inflicted lots of blows on different portions of his body by uttering the words if you do number tell the truth you will be killed.
But appellants did number arrive at the police station on that evening number was the companyplainant permitted to leave the police station.
Appellants kept him inside the lock up room and left the police station.
First respondent, a middle aged shopkeeper of Perambra, was living with his wife and three children within the limits of the said Police Station.
On the next morning, both the appellants reached the station.
and so asking he started beating the companyplainant.
Appellants then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure For short the Code for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the companyplainant.
They are the following On the evening of 23.12.1994 the companyplainant was called to the police station, he was asked to remain therein till the arrival of the first appellant.
He was kept in the lock up room from 24th December, 95 till the morning of 27th December, 95.
How they got themselves enmeshed in the companyweb of the criminal proceedings can be narrated in brief First appellant was the Sub Inspector of Police and second appellant was a Police Constable attached to Perambra Police Station situated in a moffusil centre within the Calicut district Kerala .
Hence they are number before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court.
They put the companyplainant in the lock up room, and first appellant asked him did you number steal the articles from the next shop?
He fell down.
T THOMAS, J. JJJJJJJJJJ Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ Two companys who are caught in the dock of a criminal companyrt want to pre empt the trial on the ground of limitation.
Thereafter both the appellants together showered a volley of blows all over his body.
