IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MAY 2011 / 13TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1325 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.947/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. SAJU PETER, S/O.VARKEY PATHROSE, AGED 48 YEARS, PALAL VEEDU, KUZUMA GIRI, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 2. JANARDHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 38, ELAMPADATHU, NILAMPATHINJA MUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 3. NAJEEB, S/O.MAJEED, AGED 28, VALIYA VEEDU PARAMBU, MADHURA COMPANY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1325 OF 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.947/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Cochin. They are facing prosecution for offence under Sections 283, 431 and 34 IPC. Even going by the allegations in the final report and the statement of the witnesses, no material is disclosed to send the petitioners for trial. Hence, the learned counsel sought for quashing Annexue-A1 final report in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the petitioners are liable to be tried in accordance with the procedure for trial of the warrant cases. In the event, the petitioners have got such a case that no materials are disclosed to send them for trial, they are at liberty to approach the trial court and to pray for discharge. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is premature. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though no materials are disclosed for Crl.M.C.No.1325/2011 2 framing charge, the trial court had directed the petitioners to appear before the court. The appearance insisted by the trial court is only in pursuance to the process issued. That is a consequence of taking cognizance of the offence. I find that the learned Magistrate had not at all exceeded in his jurisdiction. In the event the petitioners have got any inconvenience in appearing before the trial court on the posting date, they can very well apply for personal exemption from appearance. On the same time, they can urge for disposal of their petition for discharge. I find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is devoid of merits. 3. In the above circumstance, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move the trial court for discharge. In the event, the petitioners have got any inconvenience from appearing before the trial court, they can apply for exemption from personal appearance. Irrespective of the application for personal appearance, the learned Magistrate shall consider the request for discharge. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps