IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3481 of 2010() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.90/2007 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION) CC.467/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------- BABY GIREESH, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAYIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR FO PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HIRTHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3481 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 ORDER The petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.90/2007 of Melukavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 283 & 506(ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C. and whose case was split up from C.C.No.467/2007 and re-filed as C.C.No.210/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Erattupetta, seeks to quash the proceedings mainly on the ground that the co-accused have been acquitted after trial in C.C.No.467/2007 as evidenced by Annexure-A5 judgment dated 30/3/2009. 2. In the light of the decision of the full bench in Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police 2006(1)KLT 552 the petitioner cannot seek the proceedings to be quashed without a trial. 3. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to a motor accident the petitioner lies completely paralysed and that was the reason why the case against him was split up from C.C.No.467 of 2007. In these circumstances, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to plead for a discharge in absentia. Crl.M.C.No.3481/2010 : 2 : Accordingly, the petitioner may file an application through his counsel pleading for discharge. In case such an application is filed the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner for the disposal of the said petition. If the Magistrate does not grant a discharge, the petitioner shall be exempted from personal appearance during the subsequent trial and Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure examination shall be conducted by recourse to Sub Section 5 of Section 3 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reserving the above right of the petitioner this Criminal M.C. is disposed of. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj