IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 346 of 2010 -------------------------------- (CC.NO.303/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NORTH PARAVUR, CRIME NO.467/2002 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.ALI, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, KARUMALOOR, PARAVUR. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV. RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.467 0F 2002 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. NAZAR.S.U. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.346 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking to have all further proceedings in C.C No.303/2009 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court North Paravur quashed. 2. Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.467/2002 of North Paravur Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 448 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28/08/2008 the accused persons assembled in a meeting at North Paravur town hall and shouted slogans against the Chief Minister disturbing the meeting. After investigation the police filed final report and cognizance was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court as C.C No.513/2004. 3. The petitioner could not appear for trial and therefore the case against him was split up and kept pending as C.C No.303/2009. All other accused persons except the petitioner entered appearance for trial and the learned Magistrate acquitted Crl.M.C No.346 OF 2010 Page numbers all the accused as per judgment dated 28/02/2009. The said judgment is produced as Annexure A2. 4. Petitioner points out that in the light of Annexure A2 judgment it will not be a futile exercise to conduct trial against him as no purpose will be served. 5. He had absconded and not attended for trial. In the light of the decision of this court in “Moosa vs Sub Inspector of Police” (2006(1) KLT 552) it may not be possible to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. The petitioner will have to surrender before the court and take the consequences. 6. However if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and files an application for bail, after giving notice to the learned Public Prosecutor, the court below shall consider the application very sympathetically on the very same day itself in the light of Annexure A2 judgment and in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv