IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1017 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.187/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SAJI, S/O.GEORGE STEPHEN, MELE KOZHINJAMVILA VEDU, KARODE DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SASI, S/O.PONNAYYAN, MELE KALLAMPOTTA VEEDU, KOZHINJAMVILA, OORAMBU, KARODE DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== Crl.M.C. No.1017 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.187 of 2008 pending before the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.696 of 2001. After the evidence is over at the stage of 313 examination, he was unable to attend the court and the court was pleased to proceed with the other accused. Now the learned counsel would argue before me that at the time of recording the evidence, the petitioner was present before court and he had left the scene only at 313 stage. As there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime, he pleads for quashing the complaint. I am afraid that such a thing cannot be done obviously for the reason that in the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police(2006)(1) KLT 552) (FB), this Court had given the guidelines to be followed while invoking the power to quash a charge under Section 482 Crl.P.C. Whatever it may be, the court which passed the judgment would have never considered the case of this person for the reason that he was not available before court. As CRL.MC 1017/2009 -:2:- held by the Full Bench in the above mentioned case, the court can only look into the factum that there is a judgment of the other co-accused in the case. Therefore, it cannot be used as a document to quash the charge. Therefore I refuse to quash the proceedings. With the above, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-