IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4974 of 2008 --------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 351/2004 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION) .......... PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- RAGESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH P. PODUVAL. RESPONDENT/ STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4974 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faced indictment as the first accused in crime No.351/04 of Anthikkad police station. He faced allegations under Sections 143,147,148,341,323,324 and 506(ii) read with 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were five accused persons. The petitioner was not available for trial. He was allegedly employed abroad. Accused 2 to 5 stood trial. By Annexure C judgment dated 29/6/2007 in C.C.No.653/04, all the four other co-accused were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that the prosecution against him may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. All the co-accused have already been acquitted; but the learned counsel for the petitioner accepts readily that the mere fact that the co-accused have been acquitted, cannot, by itself be a valid reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as per the dictum of the Full Bench in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]. The learned Crl.M.C.No.4974/08 /08 2 counsel for the petitioner submits that the substratum of the allegation that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly and the allegation of vicarious liability with the aid of 149 I.P.C is cannot now lie after the judgment Annexure C. There is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly along with any other persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific overt acts were alleged against the other accused and no specific overt act whatsoever is alleged against the petitioner. Facts being so, the co-accused having already been found not guilty and it having already been found that there was no unlawful assembly, there is no reason why the petitioner must be mulcted with the liability to continue to face the prosecution. The prosecution now has no legs to stand on and therefore the case now certainly would fall within the narrow compose of cases which fall outside the sweep of the dictum in Moosa (Supra), submits counsel. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take specific instructions. It is submitted before me that, as against the petitioner, there is no allegation that he was a member of an unlawful assembly along with any others other than accused 2 to 5. It is also unambiguously conceded that there is no specific Crl.M.C.No.4974/08 /08 3 overt act alleged against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the victim has confirmed that the matter has been settled and he does not want to proceed against the petitioner herein. 4. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.1316/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M- II, Thrissur against the petitioner is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4974/08 /08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4974/08 /08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008