IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1094 of 2011() -------------------------------------- SC. 183/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. CR. NO.96/2002 OF TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. ......... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- E.K.ASHRAF, S/O.E.K.MOOSAKUTTY, ELLICKAL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM, ARAKINAR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BENNY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, MANAKKADVU P.O.-670571, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.K.ANEESH KUMAR, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, "INDRAM", VELLIYAMMATTOM P.O.-685588, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. R1- R2 BY ADV. SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. NO.1094/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE FIR IN CR. 96/2002 OF TOWN POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE. A2:- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR. 96/2002 OF TOWN POLCIE STATION KOZHIKODE. A3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26.2.2008 IN SC 824/2003 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. A4:- ORIGINAL OF THE SETTLEMENT EXECUTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. A5:- THE ORIGINAL OF THE SETTLEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1094 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.96 of 2002 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode and L.P.No.3 of 2006 and S.C.No.183 of 2008 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. He, along with other accused is said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 506(ii) and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 10.05.2002 at about 3 p.m. petitioner and other accused trespassed into Queens Bar and assaulted CWs 1 to 3. It is submitted that accused other than petitioner/first accused faced trial and were acquitted as per Annexure-A3, judgment since witnesses did not support the prosecution. Petitioner requests that proceeding against him may be quashed on the strength of Annexures-A4 and A5, affidavits of CWs 1 and 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that he is not able to confirm whether petitioner is involved in any other case. Considering the nature of offences alleged which includes offences affecting public tranquility I am not inclined to think that proceeding against petitioner should be quashed based on the settlement said to be reached between parties. Moreover, there is yet another person (CW3) also, alleged to have been assaulted about whom there is no mention in this proceeding. Request to quash proceeding cannot therefore, be allowed. Crl.MC No.1094/2011 2 2. It is submitted that a non-bailable warrant is pending against petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to grant petitioner, time to appear before learned Sessions Judge where the case is pending . It is open to the petitioner to appear before learned Sessions Judge and seek regular bail/recall of warrant. Petitioner apprehends his remand on appearance since a non-bailable warrant is pending against him. But, I have no reason to think so, since final report is already filed and accused other than petitioner/first accused are acquitted as per Annexure-A3, judgment and in the circumstances custodial interrogation of petitioner (in this case) may not be required. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is granted three weeks time from this day to appear before learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode (in L.P.No.3 of 2006 and S.C.No.183 of 2008) and seek regular bail/recall of warrant. ii. The warrant of arrest issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of three weeks or till petitioner appears before learned Sessions Judge whichever is earlier. Crl.MC No.1094/2011 3 iii. Learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode before whom the case is pending is directed to dispose of the application for bail/recall of warrant if any preferred by petitioner as early as possible having regard to the circumstances I have stated above. iv. Learned Sessions Judge is also directed to expedite trial and disposal of the case against petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks