IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1413 of 2009() ------------------------- CC NO.389/06 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, KOZHIKODE WHICH IS NOW REFILED AS C.C.29/07 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI,KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.8 --------------------------- P.A. HANSALAH MOHAMMED, POOMANNIL SAL SABEEL, KULASEKKARAPATHY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1413 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th April, 2009 ORDER Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the 8th accused in C.C.No.389/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Kozhikode. He was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 283 read with 149 I.P.C. and Section 38 read with Section 52 of the K.P.Act, on a report filed by the S.I. of Police, Nadakkavu. Trial against some of the coaccused in the above case ended in their acquittal by Annexure A judgment and the case against the petitioner was split up since he was not available for trial earlier. The prosecution allegations are unworthy of any merit and the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. imputed will not lie in the present case, as the case had not been registered on a complaint given by the public servant, is the case of the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Magistrate Court. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The trial against the other accused ended in an acquittal and the judgment passed by the court (Annexure A) indicated that the Crl.M.C.1413/09 - 2 - prosecution case is unsustainable is the basis for the petitioner's claim to quash the proceedings against him arising out of the split up case on his default to appear for trial earlier. After perusing Annexure A judgment, I am not persuaded to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is proceeded under the split up case. Some of the coaccused after trial had been acquitted is no ground for the remaining accused to seek their acquittal also without facing trial. Inherent power of this court cannot be exercised for quashing a criminal proceeding wherein the allegations prima facie disclose the culpability of the persons proceeded in the offences imputed. Whether the petitioner deserves acquittal is a matter to be adjudged by the court on the basis of the evidence to be let in in the split lup case proceeded against him and not on the basis of the previous acquittal rendered in favour of the coaccused. The split up case proceeded against the petitioner after trial should reach its logical conclusion. Petitioner submits that a warrant issued by the Magistrate is pending execution and a direction be issued to the Magistrate to consider his bail application on the date of his surrender itself. Considering the request made, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail application, if any, moved by the petitioner preferably on the date of Crl.M.C.1413/09 - 3 - his surrender, provided he surrenders before that court within ten days from the date of this order. Petition is dismissed, subject to the direction as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE