IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 522 of 2011() ------------------------ (C.C.210/2007 (RE NUMBERED AS CC.344/2010 ) of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA) .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- JIMMY ,S/O.JOSEPH, PULICKAL HOUSE, VELIYANNOORKARA, VELIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW SRI.ANZAR BASHEER SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION-PIN 686 576. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VELIYANNOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-PIN 686 638. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.522 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is second accused in C.C.No.210 of 2007 (split up and renumbered as C.C.No.344 of 2010) of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala. That case arose from the final report in Crime No.112 of 2007 of Ramapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.454 and 380 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. Case is that petitioner and first accused, his mother committed house breaking in the rice mill of the de facto complainant and theft of machineries and motor worth `.5,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are false and that first accused was tried in C.C.No.210 of 2007 and acquitted by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A1, judgment. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is now working in New Zealand, in the light of Annexure-A1, judgment it is futile to proceed with the case against petitioner and hence it is requested that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, three witnesses cited by the prosecution has seen Crl.M.C.No.522 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner and the first accused removing the machineries.. etc from the scene of occurrence. 3. The mere fact that the first accused, mother of petitioner has been acquitted by itself is no ground to quash proceeding against petitioner. It is seen from Annexure-A1, judgment that learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept the the case of prosecution against the accused who faced trial and acquitted her. Contents of Annexure-A1, judgment cannot be looked into except for the purpose as to the result of the trial in C.C.No.210 of 2007. In the light of the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor and the circumstances which I have stated above request to quash proceedings against petitioner cannot be allowed. This petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-