IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2003() ------------------------- CC.904/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT ------------------------------------- L.SREELESH S/O. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KARUVANDAVADA VEEDU, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, 2ND GATE BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3095 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. ORDER Thalassery Police had registered Crime No.385/1993 against petitioner and 35 others alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332 and 353 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution case was that on June 13, 1993 at about 4.20 p.m. about 1500 R.S.S workers including the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Thalassery Stadium with the common object to take out a procession. District Collector Kannur had prohibited taking out any procession in that area. When the procession reached near the Stadium corner, Police tried to block the procession. At that time the accused committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like sticks, stones etc. in furtherance of their common object to cause hurt to the Police personnel and to deter them from discharging their duties as public servants. The accused pelted stones at the Police personnel and beat CW.3 Circle Inspector of Police with a stick. Cws.2 and 3 had sustained injuries in the attack. The police had lodged the charge sheet after completing the investigation. Petitioner was arraigned as accused No.31 in the police charge. 3. When the above case came up for trial in CC.No.371/94 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery, the Crl.MC.3095/03. 2 petitioner and several other accused were absconding and therefore they could not be tried. Others who faced trial were acquitted by the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated November 4, 1999, a copy of which is on record as Annexure II. 4. The learned Magistrate had split up the case against accused Nos.5,6,8,9, 31(petitioner) and 36 and re-filed it as CC.1206/96. Similarly the case against accused Nos.3, 30 and 33 was also split up and re-filed. When CC.No.1206/96 came up for trial against petitioner and 6 others before the same court, petitioner and 4 others had again absconded. Therefore they could not be tried. The two accused who faced trial were also acquitted by the learned Magistrate by judgment dated December 28, 2001. A copy of the said judgment in CC.1206/01 is on record as Annexure I. 5. Petitioner has preferred this case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings pending against him in CC.No.904/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery contending inter alia that no useful purpose will be served if he is asked to face trial, especially since the court while trying the accused in two cases had already found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against any of those who faced trial. 6. I have carefully perused Annexure I and II orders passed by the trial court. It is true that the prosecution had not been able to adduce any evidence to show that the accused had committed the offences alleged against them. The prime witnesses especially those who had allegedly sustained injuries had also failed to identify the accused. The Crl.MC.3095/03. 3 court has already spent its valuable time in two cases in connection with the same crime. Though the accused cannot afford to have the luxury of walking away without facing the trial, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed only for the reason that the valuable time of the court cannot be allowed to be wasted. 7. Petitioner has not been able to establish that he was prevented from appearing before the court for any valid reason on the two occasions when the other co-accused were tried by the court. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had apparently succeeded in his ploy to evade the process of court by maneuvering. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner cannot be allowed to have the luxury of evading the process of law and he has to necessarily face trial. 8. But, for the reasons stated above and especially out of the concern for wastage of valuable time of the court, I am inclined to allow the petition on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the State. 9. If the cost as directed above is not paid before the trial court on or before April 30, 2008 , this petition shall stand dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. Crl.MC.3095/03. 4 A.K. Basheer, J. Crl.M.C.3095 of 2003 ORDER 28/03/2008.