IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3770 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.38/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 ---------------------------------------------- K.H.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.LATE K.HYDER, KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. Nos. 3770 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. 38 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.397 of 2001 of Pattambi Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 353, 294(b) read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that on 10.10.2001 at about 10.45 p.m. while the defacto complainant and other officers of the Sales Tax Department were conducting inspection in the shop of one Kabir, they were wrongfully restrained and documents were snatched away from them. They were prevented from discharging their official duty. FIR is marked as Annexure A. After investigation, final report was filed and Judicial Crl.M.C.3770/2006. 2 Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as C.C.38 of 2002. There were several other cases in relation to the same incident before the same court. When the connected cases were posted for evidence, Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawing the prosecution. That was allowed and the accused in those cases were acquitted. A copy of the said order is produced as Annexure B. The petitioner would say that the situation being identical, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. It is therefore prayed that further proceedings in C.C.94 of 2002 may be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. It is pointed out by him that the case in which the petitioner figure as accused is a different one and since the other cases have been withdrawn does not mean that the prosecution need not be continued in the present case. Crl.M.C.3770/2006. 3 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appears to be correct. May be that the State has chosen to withdraw the prosecution as against some of the accused in some other case. May be also that those accused have got the benefit of withdrawal of the case. But the withdrawal of other cases cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner will have to be considered independently. May be that ultimately the present case also may have the same fate in case the State Government chooses to withdraw the prosecution. But that is a different matter. Here, this is not a case where there is no material to further proceed with or that there is no evidence at all. In the result, while dismissing this petition, it is directed that the court below will make every endeavour to dispose of C.C.38 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.