IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3714 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.63/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA ................................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------- SMT. KOCHUMOL D/O GOURI, PALAVILA VEEDU, ENATHU DESOM, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.304A IPC. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2003 as can be ascertained from the number assigned to the case – C.C.No.63/03. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Altogether, there were 4 accused persons originally. An application was filed before the learned Magistrate seeking relief of conduct of further investigation and after conducting further investigation further final report was filed on the basis of which accused 1 and 2 as originally arrayed were deleted from the array of parties and the original accused 3 and 4 came to occupy the array as accused 1 and 2. The surviving accused are only accused 1 and 2. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against her may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. A report of the learned Magistrate was called for. It is now revealed that one of the co-accused i.e., the present 2nd accused (i.e, the original 4th accused) had come before this Court with Crl.M.C.No.333/04 and by order dated 3/8/07 the prayer to quash the proceedings was rejected. Thereafter, the matter came up for trial and it is at that stage that the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition. 3. The report of the learned Magistrate shows that charges had already been framed and the matter stood posted for trial to 22/10/08. It is at that juncture, the petitioner has come before this Court. Charges were framed and the charges framed were not challenged by the petitioner. It must also be noted that her co-accused had come to this Court in 2004 with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings against her. The petitioner had not chosen to seek such a claim so far. It is now her turn to seek such relief. 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the belated attempt made by the petitioner to seek quashing of the charges – after the co-accused failed to secure the same relief from this Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2008 -: 3 :- Court is without any merit or bona fides and the petitioner must be directed to stand trial and advance all her contentions before the learned Magistrate. The attempt made at this belated hour to challenge the cognizance taken in 2003 is found to be without any merit. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. However, I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/