IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4610 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [SC.NO.285/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, HOSDRUG, CRIME NO.308/2006 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- P.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, PERIYA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. K.N.SAJEESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU KESAVAN, R/AT KESAVA NIVAS, PUKKALAM PERIYA POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 121. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4610 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the fifth accused in S.C.No. 394/2007 on he file of Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdrug, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against him as S.C.No.285/2009 contending that in view of Annexure-2 judgment acquitting the co-accused and Annexure-3 series of depositions of PWs 1 to 5 in that case, no purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though, based on Annexure-2 judgment the case pending against the petitioner cannot be quashed, in the light of the depositions of the witnesses, when no purpose will CRMC 4610/10 2 be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and waste the valuable time of the court. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and based on Annexure-2 judgment and depositions of the witnesses in the case, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), based on the judgment acquitting the co- accused, the case against an absconding accused cannot be quashed. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner may be permitted to seek an order of discharge. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to seek an order of discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure raising all the contentions raised herein. 23rd November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv