IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2486 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.443/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 7 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARA PANICKER, MANAYAM VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. RAJENDRAN,S/O.ENOSE, MUTHUKUVILA VEEDU, KEESHKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. SURESH KUMAR @ SANTHOSH,S/O.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO- 4. RAVI,S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MUNDAKKAL VILAKAM VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. 5. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, KARIYODE PLATHINKARA VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. 6. VISHNU, S/O.MOHANAN, KARIYODU, MUTHUKUVILA VEEDU, NECHIYOOR DESOM, VHENKAL VILLAGE. 7. RENJITH LAL, S/O.SASI, KARIYODE THURATHINKARA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER Crl.MC.No. 2486 of 2010() 2 RESPONDENT(S): STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SIVAKUMAR, S/O. RAJENDRAN, CHINGACHAMAVILA VEEDU, KARIYODE, KEEZHAMMAKOM DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.2486 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 05.07.2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C No.443/2009 on the file of J.F.C.M-II, Neyyattinkara seek to quash Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings . 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. Crl. M.C. No.2486 of 2010 2 4. The petitioners shall also submit before the Magistrate that the dispute between the parties have already been settled. The 7th petitioner, who is the 7th accused, may also highlight the fact that he has been selected in the Indian Army and the present prosecution may mar his career. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Dated this the 5 th day of July, 2010. sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True copy/ P.A.to Judge