IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3906 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.730/2009 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/A9: ------------------------ ALI @ KADAMPUZHA ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, MANAYANGATTIL VEEDU, VADAKKEKULAMBU BHAGAM, MENMURI VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.V. GEORGE, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANACHICADU VILLAGE, KOLLAD KARA, KOLLAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3906 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime No. 730/2009 of Kottayam East Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 120B, 342 and 364A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After completing the investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was submitted and cognizance was taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam and it is now pending before the court at the committal stage. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated under Annexures-A1 and A2. 2. Petitioner would contend that by Annexure-A3 order, seventh accused was permitted to raise all the contentions before the trial court and claim discharge, without insisting for his personal presence and by Annexures-A4 and A5 orders, accused CRMC 30906/10 2 6 and 8 were also permitted to claim discharge without insisting for their personal presence. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find no reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, when petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions and claim discharge from the trial court. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to claim discharge as provided under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If petitioner files an application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with his presence for the purpose of claiming discharge, learned Sessions Judge not to insist for his presence. 23rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv