IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4670 of 2008() ------------------------- LP.31/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. KAKKOTTAYIL RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MENHANIAM, KOYILANDY. 2. P.MOIDU, S/O SOOPPY, PILAVULLATHIL HOUSE POST:KOTTOTH, VIA.MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMBRA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, 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 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4670 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, along with the co-accused, faced allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted in Crime No.35 of 1996 of Perambra police station. The available co-accused were committed to the court of Sessions and the case against such accused was registered as S.C. 708 of 2003. In that sessions case the learned Prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal from the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. That request was allowed and by Annex.B order the prosecution against the accused in S.C.708 of 2003 was permitted to be withdrawn. 2. The petitioners had not appeared before the committal court. The case against them was split up and the same is now pending as L.P.31 of 2007. They have not entered appearance so far. Coercive processes have been issued against the Crl.M.C.No. 4670 of 2008 2 petitioners. The petitioners pray that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the surviving prosecution against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the withdrawal was not in favour of the accused in S.C.708 of 2003 alone. The real purpose was to ensure withdrawal of the case against all the accused, who were arrayed as accused as per the final report in Crime No.35 of 1996 of Perambra police station. The learned counsel points out that in favour of a co- accused similarly placed, another Bench of this Court had passed an order dt.21.1.2008 in Crl.M.C. 3375 of 2007. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not oppose the application. The learned Prosecutor accepts that the real purpose was to bring to termination by withdrawal the proceedings against all the accused referred to in the final report in Crime No.35 of 1996. 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the Crl.M.C.No. 4670 of 2008 3 unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution pending against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) L.P. 31 of 2007 pending against the petitioners as per the final report in Crime No.31 of 2007 of Perambra police station is hereby quashed. c) The learned Magistrate shall make necessary entries in the concerned registers to record such quashing of proceedings. d) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm