IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 159 of 2008() ------------------------ L.P. NO. 13/90 ARISING OUT OF CC.290/1989 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------- M.A.NAJAM, MAHAR, MATTAPPALLY, NILAMEL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AT P.B.NO.1380, ALCOBAR, SOUDI ARABIA. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.159 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 290/1989 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and which case has been transferred to the Long Pending Register and numbered as L.P. No. 13/1990, seeks to quash the entire proceedings before the Magistrate. 2. In support of this petition the following submissions were made before me:- While according to Annexure A FIR, there was only receipt of money on two occasions namely 07.02.1979, on which day a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was paid and on 08.03.1979 a further sum of Rs.7,500/- was paid, Annexure B final report would mention three transactions to say that on 07.02.1979 a sum of Rs.3,500/- was paid and on 08.03.1979 a further amount of Rs.5,500/- was paid and some time in the middle of march, 1979 a sum of Rs.2000 was paid. In the face of this contradiction regarding the alleged receipt of money, allowing the prosecution continue will CRL. M.C. NO. 159/2008 : 2 : amount to abuse of the process of court. The FIR was registered on 15.12.1981 in respect of the alleged transaction which took place in February and March, 1979. The prosecution has not explained the delay in filing the FIR. The final report itself was filed only on 30.08.1989 and absolutely no reasons have been given for the inordinate delay in filing the final report. Hence, this is a fit case where the final report should be rejected and the entire proceedings should be quashed. CW3, who is one of the charge witnesses, has given an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the FIR was given by the de facto complainant who is no more and the said affidavit will clearly show that the prosecution of the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of court. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. This is a case where the petitioner who is the 2nd accused has been absconding thoughout and he claims to be employed abroad. He never made himself available for interrogation by the police. This is presumably the main reason why the police could not complete the investigation and file a CRL. M.C. NO. 159/2008 : 3 : charge sheet. Such a person cannot blame the investigating agency and take advantage of the same. I see no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate and face the trial. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed after examining the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance. This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 159/2008 : 4 :