IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 490 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.72/08 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 5: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAKKARIYA K.P, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN, SAKKARIYA MANZIL, KATHIROOR AMSOM, 4TH MILE, THALASSERY. 2. RAYEEZ PUTHIYAPURAYIL, S/O MAMMU, AGED 40 YEARS FAJAR, KADIRUR AMSOM, PONNIYAM, 4TH MILE, THALASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (SHO ,KADIRUR), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.490 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 1 and 5 in C.C.No. 72/2008 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thalassery, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings contending that the other co-accused were acquitted after trial by Annexure-A judgment and there is a clear finding in Annexure-A judgment that complaint was filed only after one year and there is no explanation for not filing the complaint earlier, if there was any harassment and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as there is no likelihood of a conviction, even if petitioner is to be tried. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. As petitioners were absconding, the case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No. 609/2009. All the remaining accused were tried by the CRMC 490/10 2 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and by Annexure-A judgment, those accused were acquitted. As held by a Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), the judgment acquitting a co-accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be considered for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It can be looked into only to find out who are the parties to the said judgment and whether the case ended in conviction or acquittal. The finding in Annexure-A judgment cannot be looked into to quash the proceedings as sought for. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to seek an order of discharge before the learned Magistrate, if charge is not framed. 19th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv