IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 79 of 2008() ----------------------- CC.864/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------ NAVAS KHAN, S/O. AKBAR KHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, KUNNETHU HOUSE, PAYIKUZHIMURIYIL, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ========================= CRL.M.C.NO.79 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February 2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.308/1999 of the Oachira Police Station and now pending before the JFCM, Karunagappally as C.C.864/2007 seeks to quash the final report as well as the proceedings before the Magistrate. 2. Going by the statement filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Oachira, one Vavachan who is the brother in law of a Police Constable by name Biju Thomas had purchased the motor cycle in question bearing Reg.No.KL-3/4227 from the first accused, Navaz Khan (petitioner herein) as per an agreement. At the time of handing over the motor vehicle, the said Vavachan promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- as and when the first accused would hand over the R.C.book and other papers. Subsequently when the said Vavachan went abroad, he transferred the vehicle to the brother in law of the Police Constable, Biju Thomas. The first accused is alleged to have failed to perform the promise and on further investigation it is CRL.M.C.79/2008 2 revealed that the motor cycle itself was a stolen one. This resulted in the registration of the above crime for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences by taking on file the above case as C.C.864/2007. If the Magistrate has not framed the charge already, the petitioner can seek a discharge in absentia in case he is able to show that there is no material produced by the prosecution to frame charge against the petitioner. If the Court has already framed the charge, then the remedy of the petitioner is to face trial and try to get an acquittal. No grounds have been made out to quash the final report or the proceedings before the Magistrate. Hence this M.C. is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/