IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2321 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.67/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 3,5,6,7,8,9 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM V., S/O.MARIAM, AGED 61 YEARS, SOUDAS, BANK ROAD, P.O.CHALAD, KANNUR. 2. NOORJAHAN V., D/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 41 YEARS DHARUL HUDHA, MISSION COMPOUNDD, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 3. NASHIDA V., D/O.LATHEEF, AGED 22 YEARS, DHARUL HUDHA, MISSION COMPOUND, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 4. FATHIMA V., D/O.LATHEEF, AGED 19 YEARS, DHARUL HUDHA, MISSION COMPOUND, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 5. ZEENATH P.P., W/O.HARRIS, AGED 34 YEARS, BAITHUL VAFA, NEAR RAGAM THEATRE, MARAKARKANDY, KANNUR-3. 6. JUBIRIYATH K.P., W/O.AJEER, AGED 35 YEARS, FATHIMA GHAR, P.O.THANA, KANNUR-12. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN Crl.MC.No. 2321 of 2010() 2 RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMNA B., W/O.SHAMEER V., AGED 23 YEARS, MARIMAS, KANNOTHAMCHAL, P.O.CHOVVAL, KANNUR-6. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O.KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.2321 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 29.06.2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 5 to 9 in C.C. No.67/2010 on the file of J.F.C.M-II, Kannur for offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 IPC, seek to quash all further proceedings. 2. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to meticulously scan the voluminous prosecution records and hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is groundless and the same is liable to be quashed. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to plead for a discharge before the Court below. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly if the petitioners file an application for discharge before the court below through their counsel, that court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners for the disposal of the discharge petition. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj