IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2612 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.63/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANEEZ, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY VALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE 2. NOUSHAD, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, VALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE 3. NAVAS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, VALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE 4. NASEER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, VALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM 5. BEEVIKUNJU, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, VALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. BADARUDEEN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. JAFFAR KUTTY, KAYYALAKKAKAKATHY VEETTIL, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMNKULAM VILLAGE, PIN- 690 502 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9-7-2010 , THE COURT ON 09/07/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Crl.M.C..No. 2612 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated: 9th July 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 63 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Kayamkulam, for offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 379 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seek to quash Annexure A3 complaint and all further proceedings in the above C.C. 2. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to meticulously scan the voluminous prosecution records and hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is groundless and the same is liable to be quashed. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to plead for a discharge before the Court below. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly if the petitioners file an application for discharge before the court below through their counsel, that court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners for the disposal of the discharge petition. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani /true copy/ P.S. to Judge