IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2012 of 2008() ------------------------- S.T.NO.297 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C-II, PEERUMEDU PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. ARUL RAJ, S/O RAMAYYA, PUTHENTHARAYIL VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE. 2. RAJA PANDIAN S/O POOMARI, DOOR NO 24/60, SAVADI THERUVU, DEVATHARAM GRAMAM, RAJAPALAYAM TALUK, VIRUTHU NAGAR DISTRICT. 3. BALAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, KALARICKAL VEETIL, KALARICKAL VEETIL, GIRIGAN COLONY, VANCHIVAYAL KARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2012 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 to 4 and it is submitted that they face allegations only under Section 188 of the M.V Act. Against the 1st accused, there is an allegation that he was guilty of the offence under Section 185 of the M.V Act and certain other offences. The petitioners prayed that proceedings against them may be dropped invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. 2. I am certainly of the opinion that an accused person, who faces allegations of summons offences only in a case initiated on a police report, can at the time of appearance and before particulars of offence are read over to him request the learned Magistrate to consider his prayer for dropping of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate did not consider that plea on merits. 3. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that a direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the plea of the petitioners to drop further proceedings Crl.M.C. No.2012 of 2008 2 against them invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. For considering that plea, the learned Magistrate need not insist on the personal presence of the petitioners. They can be permitted to appear through their counsel and advance this plea. The learned Magistrate shall then consider the objections raised against the initiation of proceedings against the petitioners and shall specifically come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners are liable to face that proceedings for any offence alleged against them. Such offence shall also be specified in the order. 4. I say so, because there is a contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded against only under Section 188 of the M.V Act, which according to the counsel is the only allegation against the petitioners in the final report, the petitioners may even think of pleading guilty to avoid the trauma of continuation of further proceedings. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed in part. The learned Magistrate shall consider the prayer of the petitioners for dropping of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. If the Crl.M.C. No.2012 of 2008 3 learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that such proceedings are not liable to be dropped, the learned Magistrate shall specify for which offence the petitioners are to be proceeded against. 6. The personal presence of the petitioners need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate unless such presence be necessary for taking further steps in the case. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-