IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4103 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- C.C.NO.180/2007 OF JFMC III, PALAKKAD ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KUNNAMKADU VEEDU, MOOLAMKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI. BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4103 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner as the 3rd accused faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 IPC. Altogether, there were three accused persons. Accused 1 and 2 have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up. He has not entered appearance so far after the case against him was split up. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate after cognizance was taken and he was enlarged on bail. He was employed abroad. That is why he could not continue to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The petitioner has Crl.M.C. No. 4103 of 2008 -: 2 :- now come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that direction may be issued to ensure that the dictum in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) is complied with and that the petitioner's application for regular bail is considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 2. I am not persuaded to agree that any special or specific direction deserves to be issued. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George (supra). I am not satisfied that any special or separate direction deserves to be issued in each case to the learned Magistrate to comply with the directions in Alice George (supra). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate shall not follow the decision in Alice George (supra). If there be non-compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to seek discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has to face a warrant trial and cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. The petitioner is entitled to claim discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and even without any specific Crl.M.C. No. 4103 of 2008 -: 3 :- directions of this Court, the learned Magistrate must consider the claim of the petitioner for discharge if charges have not already been filed. The counsel submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. If that be so, the complainant can file an application for composition. The offences alleged are compoundable under Sec.320 Cr.P.C., it is submitted. 4. This application is dismissed; but with the above specific observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge