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. 1417 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.178/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2, 4 AND 5: --------------------------------- 1. DINESHKUMAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, KIDNGATTU HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR, PALA, KOTTAYAM. 2. PAULSON, S/O. MATHEW, CHERUVALLIYIL HOUSE, VAKKADU, MOONNILAVU, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 3. DANIEL JOSE, S/O. JOSE THOMAS, CHAKKALKULATHU, KIZHATHIDYOOR, LALAM, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.RADHIKA MENON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, REPRRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M. KISHORE, S/O. MANI, KISHORE HOUSE, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.1417 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners are accused 2, 4 and 5 in C.C.No.178/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, wherein, they are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 (b) read with Section 34 of IPC, on the basis of a charge laid by the S.I. of Police, Pala Police Station. The materials produced in the case, prima facie, do not substantiate the allegations imputed against the petitioners and a trial proceeded on the charge filed by the police, will be an abuse of process of law, is the case of the petitioners to seek quashing of the criminal case pending against them before the Magistrate in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and CRL.M.C.1417/09 2 also the learned Public Prosecutor. In respect of one of the accused, this Court has passed an order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 16, to seek premature termination of the proceedings by discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., is canvassed by the counsel to contend that the petitioners too are entitled to seek termination of the proceedings. After going through Annexure 16 order, I find the application moved by the petitioner therein, the 1st accused in the case, for termination of the criminal proceedings, was dismissed, but with liberty to seek his claim for premature termination of the proceedings by discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., when the question of framing of charge is taken up for consideration by the Magistrate. The order so passed by this Court will not in any way assist any of the other accused in the case including the petitioner to contend that this Court has expressed any view that the indictment levelled against the petitioners is not supported by the materials produced by the investigating agency nor their prosecution suffer from any infirmity. If at all the petitioners are entitled to discharge, for any reason CRL.M.C.1417/09 3 whatsoever, that too, can seek for discharge, when the Magistrate takes up the case for framing of charge and, no doubt, any such claim thereof will be considered by the learned Magistrate on its merits with reference to the materials produced in the case. There is no merit in the petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009