IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1715 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CC.926/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN, S/O.SANKARAN, CHENDAMKUZHY HOUSE, AVANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. LEENA, W/O.RAJAN, CHENDAMKUZHY HOUSE, AVANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 3. PARAMESWARAN, S/O SANKARAN, POTTEKKATU HOUSE, AVANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 4. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ARANGATH HOUSE, AVANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 5. RAMAN, KANIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANDOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 6. RAGESH, S/O.RAMAN, KANIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANDOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA Crl.MC.No. 1715 of 2010() 2 RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SANKARAN, CHENDAMKUZHY HOUSE, AVANOOR VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1715 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated:27.07.2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.4/2009 of Peramangalam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,447 and 427 read with 149 IPC, seek to quash Annexure C final report and further proceedings in C.C.No.926/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kunnamkulam. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to meticulously scan the voluminous prosecution records and hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is groundless and the same is liable to be quashed. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to plead for a discharge before the Court below. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly if the petitioners file an application for discharge before the court below through their counsel, that court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners for Crl. M.C. No.1715 of 2010 2 the disposal of the discharge petition. 5. In case the learned Magistrate does not grant a discharge instead frames a charge against the petitioners or any of them, the petitioners will be entitled to apply for personal exemption during trial by filing a petition incorporating the necessary averments. If such a petition is filed the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner unless it is inevitable to do so at any subsequent stage of the trial. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Dated this the 27 th day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj