IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3816 of 2008() ------------------------- LP.48/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED. -------------------------------------- BIPIN VINODAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VINODAN,VALIYAVEETTIL VEEDU, VADAKKKUMPURAM,CHENNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE. -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.(CRIME NO.146 OF 1997 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3816 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 366 read with 511 I.P.C and Section 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Altogether there were four accused persons. All the three others had faced trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against him has been split up. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused having already been acquitted, the petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings against him quashed. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted in the light of the dictum in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]. An absconding co-accused, it is now trite, cannot take advantage of the statement of the hostile witnesses who do not support the case of the prosecution in the trial against the co-accused. The complicity of the petitioner herein was not Crl.M.C.No.3816/08 2 relevant when the trial against the co-accused was in progress. Though there is a submission that the disputes between the parties have been settled, it is now revealed that the victim is not willing to report composition to this court. I am not persuaded to agree that notice deserves to be issued to the victim to ascertain whether she has done the impermissible act of composition of a non-compoundable offence. 3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the fact that the co-accused have been acquitted or the alleged unsubstantiated circumstance that the victim has compounded the offence against the petitioner herein are not sufficient to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. He prays that direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider his application for bail in the light of the decision in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339] as also Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280, Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452, Krishnakumar v. State of Crl.M.C.No.3816/08 3 Kerala [20005(1) KLD(Cri.)42] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250]. 5. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George (Supra). It is not necessary for this court in every subsequent case to issue directions to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice George (Supra). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself in the light of the decisions referred above. Every court is bound to do the same. If the directions are not complied with the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner. 6. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C or any observation made in this order will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions at the stage of framing charges and thereafter. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3816/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3816/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008