IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3047 of 2008() ------------------------- L.P.C.NO.33/07 IN C.C.NO.518/06 OF J.F.C.M, TALIPARAMBA PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- SANEESH IKAL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.M.VASU, 'SHAMA', PULIMBARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faced indictment as the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were 4 accused persons. All of them stood trial. The prosecution evidence was closed. But the petitioner was not available for 313 examination. He started absconding after that date. On the common evidence adduced before court against all the accused, the co-accused were found not guilty and acquitted as per judgment dated 23.06.08. The petitioner was not available from the stage of 313 examination. The case against him was split up. 2. The case has now been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. At this stage the petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against him may also be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 2 3. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence of the petitioner was not wilful and was on account of reasons beyond his control. At any rate, the entire evidence against the petitioner has been adduced by the prosecution. No further or better evidence can or need be adduced. The evidence against the petitioner had also been closed. So the findings are rendered in favour of the co-accused on the basis of the same evidence on which the culpability of the petitioner has to be ascertained. It having already been held that the said evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused persons, the petitioner is entitled to derive benefit or advantage of those findings. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that there is no necessity to compel the petitioner to face the trauma of continued prosecution. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all possible evidence against the petitioner had also been adduced before the court below. Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 3 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that notwithstanding the dictum of [Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552], the petitioner can be given the benefit or advantage arising from the findings rendered in Annexure-A2 judgment of acquittal against the co-accused. On merits, the accused had secured acquittal and there is no reason to deny the petitioner alone of the advantage of such findings in favour of the accused. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) The surviving prosecution against the petitioner as C.C.No.518 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba is hereby quashed; iii) It is made clear that proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and his sureties shall continue and be disposed of in accordance with law. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 4