IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21392 of 2008(V) -------------------------- CC.55/1994 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P. NAVAS, S/O. ALAVI, AGED 35 POOMADATHIL HOUSE, KLARIMOOCHICKAL, KUTTIPALA MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 21392 of 2008 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first accused facing indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 324, 506(ii) r/w. 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were nine accused persons. Accused 3 to 9 were available for trial. They faced the trial and were found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner and a co-accused were not available for trial. The case against them was split up. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The decision of the Full Bench in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) squarely applies. The mere fact that the accused, who faced the trial, were found not guilty and acquitted on the basis of the materials made available before the Court in the trial against W.P.C.No. 21392 of 2008 2 such accused is, it is now trite, not a sufficient reason for the absconding accused to claim any benefit/advantage on the basis of such acquittal. The position having been covered squarely by the decision of the Full Bench, I am satisfied that there is no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the option of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions and claim acquittal before the trial court shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. (R. BASANT) Judge tm