IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1128 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRRP.55/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.287/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.125/2003 OF KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHUKKENKONAM MAHALIKOODAM, THENKURUSSI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1128 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, who was implicated by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad, exercising the power under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in C.C.No.287/2007, to be tried along with the accused who is facing trial for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.No.55/2009. By Annexure-I order, learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that though petitioner was also shown as an accused originally, after investigation, he was exonerated and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the final report and the defacto complainant has not filed any private complaint against the petitioner, in spite of the fact CRMC 1128/10 2 that he did not continue to be an accused on submission of the final report and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should not have proceeded against the petitioner invoking the powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure especially when two other accused, the brothers of the petitioner, were acquitted after trial and the case against the petitioner was split up, as he was absconding at that time. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-I order. The fact that an accused was exonerated after investigation and in the final report, he does not continue to be an accused, does not prevent the Magistrate in exercising the powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Sessions Judge, on going through the records, found that learned Magistrate was justified in invoking the powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed. 31st March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv