IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 632 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.885/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- T. RAVI, S/O. LATE CHANDANKUNHI, AGED 43 YEARS, THANNODATHU HOUSE, AINGOTH, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI. RESPONDENTS/STATE --------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.632 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd February 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was the second accused in C.C.1422/1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. As he was absconding, case as against him was split up and re-filed as C.C.885/2002. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him contending that in view of the order of acquittal in Annexure-2 judgment, even if petitioner is to be tried there is no likelihood of a conviction and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crmc 632/10 2 3. Prayer in the petition is to quash the case as against him relying on Annexure-2 judgment. Full Bench decision of this court mandates that an order of acquittal as against the co-accused cannot be looked into for exercising powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of an absconding accused and it can be looked into only for finding who are the parties and whether it ended in conviction or not. Hence based Annexure-2 judgment, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender, as a non bailable warrant is pending. When an accused Crmc 632/10 3 surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court or the Apex court or that the Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. In such circumstances, no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.