IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22180 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CC.702/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BHASI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT KOZHYOTTU MADAM, KOONTHALLOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU POST, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASHA, D/O.SUSHEELA, AGED 32 YEARS, 'ANASOORYA', VANKADAVU, KULAMUTTAM DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22180 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No. 702/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the Magistrate to dispose the case within a time frame. Case of the petitioner is that though the case is pending from 2006 onwards, it is not being disposed and is being adjourned at the instance of the second respondent, the defacto complainant and therefore a direction be issued to the Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. 2. On the submission of the learned counsel, a report was called for from the Magistrate. Report of the Magistrate shows that on 16.5.2007, counsel appearing for the fourth accused, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, submitted before the court that a Crl.M.C. is filed before the High WPC 22180/09 2 court and further proceedings is stayed by the Court. Subsequently, the order in Crl.M.A.No. 2099/2007 in Crl.M.C.No.1279/2007, granting interim stay, was produced before the Magistrate. Report also shows that though the Crl.M.C. was disposed as early as on 5.6.2007, the order was not communicated to the Magistrate and the factum of dismissal of the Crl.M.C. or the vacation of stay was not reported. Even though the case was being adjourned as stated by the Magistrate from 5.6.2007 to 12.6.2009, no request was made for a speedy disposal of the case. Report further shows that when summons was issued, second respondent expressed apprehension in conducting the case by Assistant Public Prosecutor alleging that he is a close friend of the petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor expressed his desire to rescue himself from the case and at that time, this petition is filed. Learned Magistrate also reported that if another Public prosecutor is appointed, the case WPC 22180/09 3 can be disposed without further delay. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, the earlier Assistant Public Prosecutor was changed and another Assistant Public Prosecutor was put in charge. If that be so, I find no reason why Magistrate cannot dispose the case immediately. Writ petition is disposed directing the Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. 26th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv