IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3154 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.108/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------ IRUMBAN HANEEFA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MYHAMMADKUNHI, NHEKLY (P.O), PADENA VIA KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the second accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were ten accused persons. All the other accused faced trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against him has been split up and refiled. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. He was employed abroad. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. He finds such processes chasing him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that in as much as all the co-accused have been found not guilty and acquitted, the petitioner may also now be saved of the undeserved trauma of continuance of this prosecution against him. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008 2 3. After the decision in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) rendered by a Full Bench, it is trite that an absconding accused cannot claim any benefit or advantage from the acquittal of the co- accused, who faced trial. I have gone through the judgment in the trial against the co-accused. The evidence of the witnesses in that case have been placed before me. I am unable to agree that notwithstanding the dictum in Moosa (supra) the petitioner is entitled for premature termination of proceedings against him by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. In the trial against the co-accused, there was no occasion whatsoever for the prosecution to tender evidence, which shows the culpability of the petitioner herein. No evidence was necessary to be adduced in such prosecution when the petitioner did not face indictment. The petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. and admittedly there is no settlement of the disputes between the victim and the petitioner herein. It would be idle for this Court to speculate whether any evidence is possible to be adduced against the petitioner when he Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008 3 faces trial. I am satisfied in these circumstances that following the dictum in Moosa (supra) the petitioner is not entitled for premature termination of the prosecution against him by the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008 4 7. The petitioner wants to seek expeditious disposal of the prosecution against him as he has to return to his place of employment. He can move the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate relief. 8. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm