IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2578 of 2009 --------------------------------- SC.635/2006 of THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ..................................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- JAMALUDHEEN,S/O.MOIDU,MARUTHONKARA, VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.CHANDU,PUTHIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,IYYAMKODE.P.O,NADAPURAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tga M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2578 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in S.C.635/2006 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions court, Kozhikode. Petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that there is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure do not establish that the petitioner was responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased Sajina and in such circumstances, the case as against the petitioner is CRMC 2578/09 2 to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has already framed the charge and petitioner did not challenge the framing of charge and when the case is posted for evidence after issuing summons, this petition is filed and at the belated stage this court may not interfere with the trial. It is submitted that if necessary, petitioner can seek exemption from personal appearance and in such circumstances, the petition may be dismissed. 5. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that based on the statements recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the case is to be quashed, I do not find that at this belated stage this court has to exercise the extra ordinary inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure after scanning the case diary when petitioner had a right under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure to claim discharge, if there is no material as against him to frame a charge and at a later stage to challenge even the framing of the charge. Petitioner did not challenge the framing of charge as against him. In such CRMC 2578/09 3 circumstances, I do not find, it is in the interest of justice to scan the statements recorded under Section 161 as sought for and find out whether there is any material to convict the petitioner or not. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions at the time of trial. As identity of the petitioner cannot be disputed, petitioner is at liberty to apply before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge for exemption from personal appearance and if, such a petition is filed learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge to consider it favourably. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.