IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 176 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.517/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO. 899/2003 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 --------------------------------- R.SURESH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, SREEVARAHAM VEEDU, G.K.PILLA ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECAUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULA, (CRIME NO.899/2003 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) 2. SANTHA RAGHAVAN,W/O.RAGHAVAN, KALLUKOOTHATHU VEEDU, ALLAPRAKARA, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.176 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is first accused in Crime No.899 of 2003 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 294(b) r/w 34 of the IPC. Case is that he, along with second accused (wife of petitioner) wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, voluntarily caused hurt and used obscene words at her. The case against accused No.2 was tried as C.C.No.517 of 2004 and it resulted in her acquittal vide Annexure-1, judgment. Since petitioner was working abroad he did not take part in the trial and hence the case against him was refiled as C.C.No.413 of 2010 (of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor). Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in the light of Annexure-1, judgment acquitting the second accused. It is contended by learned counsel that in the light of Annexure-1, judgment, there is no purpose in petitioner being put to trial. 2. True, by Annexure-1, judgment second accused face the trail on the same allegation and was acuitted. But it is seen from Annexure-1, judgment that, in that case CWs.4, 5 and 8 Crl.M.C.No.176 of 2011 -: 2 :- were not examined as they were not produced by the prosecution. PW1/CW1 gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. PWs.2 and 3 stated about the start of incidents but did not support the prosecution in full. Learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence and acquitted the second accused by Annexure-1, judgment. That does not mean that for the reason stated therein, case against petitioner is to be quashed. I do not find reason to quash the proceedings against petitioner. He has to face the trial. 3. At this stage learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be granted permanent exemption from appearance in C.C.No.413 of 2010. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Noorjahan Vs. Moideen (2000(2) KLT 756) to contend that even in cases involving warrant trial the court has discretionary power to exempt personal appearance. 4. The Supreme Court has held in Manoj Narain Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal (2009(4) Supreme 85) that it is not proper for the High court to grant permanent exemption while dealing with a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Primarily that is a matter which the Magistrate concerned has to decide. I do not consider it Crl.M.C.No.176 of 2011 -: 3 :- appropriate to pass any order granting exemption from appearance in the trial court. It is open to the petitioner to make a request to that effect in the trial court and if any such request is made learned Magistrate shall decide that matter as provided under law. 5. Petitioner is apprehensive of the warrant and other coercive steps initiated against him. Having regard to the circumstances stated, petitioner is granted three (3) weeks' time from this day to appear before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor and seek regular bail. Coercive steps initiated against petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of three weeks. This criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-