IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4900 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.206/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... (CRIME NO.50/2005 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ASHRAF PALLIKALAKATH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK N.K., RUKSANA MANZIL, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PADNE, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, WHO IN TURN REPRESENT THE DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILESHWARAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4900 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner along with co-accused faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner had not appeared before the learned Magistrate. The co-accused, who appeared before the court to face trial, were all acquitted consequent to withdrawal of the case by the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. As the petitioner was not available, the case against him was split up and refiled. Two other co-accused who were absconding were also so proceeded against after splitting up of the case. The petitioner has now come before this Court with a prayer that he is also entitled to the advantage/benefit of withdrawal of the case. The State has really wanted withdrawal of case against all accused persons including the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no justification for denial of the benefit of withdrawal as against the petitioner. In these circumstances it is prayed that the case against the petitioner may also be quashed, the State having already chosen to withdraw from the prosecution and the benefit of such withdrawal having already been extended to accused persons who had appeared before court. Crl.M.C. No.4900 of 2008 2 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the true intention was to withdraw the prosecution as against all the accused persons. The State has no objection in the prosecution against the petitioner being quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not even available in India on the date of the offence and his passport would vouch this fact. 4. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted without going into all those contentions raised on merits. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) C.P.No.206 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-Hosdurg in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-