IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2186 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.547/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- 1. JOSE,S/O.OUSEPH,KONIKKAKA HOUSE, COMPANYPPADI DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ROY,S/O.JOSE,KONIKKAKA HOUSE, COMPANYPPADI DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. BINOY,S/O.JOSE KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. VARKEY,S/O.OUSEPH, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. JUSTIN,S/O.VARKEY, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. MILAN, S/O.VARKEY. KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. POULOTH, S/O.OUSEPH, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 8. MARY,W/O.JOSE, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. Crl.MC.No. 2186 of 2010 :2: 9. ROSEMOL,D/O.JOSE, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 10. RAPHI, S/O.POULOTH KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.RAPPAI, S/O.DEVASSY, KONIKKAKA HOSUE,COMPANYPPADY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2186 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.547/2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court-III, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 109 read with 34 IPC, seek to quash Annexure A private complaint and all further proceedings before the Magistrate. 2. The learned Magistrate has already framed charge and the case is posted for prosecution evidence. When the trial of the case was already started with the framing of the charge, the appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to face the trial and try to secure an order of acquittal. If a question of identity does not arise, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to file an application for personal exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C during the trial of the case by incorporating appropriate averments. In case such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall exempt the petitioners from personal appearance during the trial, unless their personal appearance is inevitable at any stage of the trial. Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this Criminal M.C is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb