IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 317 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.91/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... (CRIME NO.328/2003 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION) ,...... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ THARAPRASAD, S/O. SUDHARMAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN, MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJI, D/O. KAITHAVALAPPIL BHASKARAN, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.317 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash Annexure A3 pursuant to C.C No.91/2004 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur and also to quash the charge sheet filed thereof. 2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C No.91/2004. Accused 2 and 3 are his parents. 1st petitioner married the complainant on 01/05/1994 and they have a son in the wedlock. The respondent had gone to her paternal home for delivery and she had not return to the house of the petitioner. It seems that the wife preferred a complaint alleging cruelty also against the parents of her husband. On the basis of the final report, cognizance was taken alleging offences punishable under Section 406, 498A r/w 34 I.P.C. 3. At the time of trial 2nd and 3rd accused were available and the 1st accused could not stand trial. 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted after trial and the 1st accused was treated as absconding and the case as against him was split up and included in the L.P register as L.P.C No.265/2008. Subsequently warrants were issued against the 1st petitioner and execution of warrants is still pending. 4. Petitioner would point out that on conducting trial of the case in C.C No.91/2004 his parents were found not guilty of the Crl.M.C No.317 OF 2010 Page numbers offences alleged against them. It is also pointed out that in the light of Annexure A1 order, it can be seen that the allegations made against the petitioner in the affidavit have no subsistence. 5. Whether there are any substance in the allegations levelled against the petitioner is the matter to be determined. As the petitioner was absconding, warrant against him is pending. Merely because accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty of the offences alleged against them and acquitted the same benefits need not be given to the 1st petitioner automatically. 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted because there was no sufficient evidence against them. 6. Petitioner will have to stand trial before the court below. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and files an application for bail, after giving notice to the learned Public Prosecutor, the court below may be directed to consider the application for bail as expeditiously as possible, if possible, on the same day itself and pass orders in accordance with law. 7. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, court below is directed to consider the bail application on surrender before the court, if any, filed by the petitioner on the very same day after issuing notice to the learned Public Prosecutor. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE vdv