IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 726 of 2011 -------------------------------- [CC.NO.172/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY] .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ PRATHEESH K NAIR, AGED 39, S/O.C.N.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT NANTHA NIVAS THIRUVANCHOOR P.O, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. NANTHA KISHORE,AGED 42, S/O.C.N.K.NAIR, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DEEPTHI S. NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.NANTHA KISHORE, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.726 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. ORDER Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this petition. 2. Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.172 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Grievance of petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are playing hide and seek game under the cover of Annexure-A2, order passed by this Court on 30.07.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.3063 of 2010 while petitioner is appearing in court on every posting date. Petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Magistrate for time bound disposal of the case. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.3063 of 2010 to quash proceeding against them and this Court passed Annexure-A2, order dated 30.07.2010 refusing to quash proceeding but allowing petitioners (respondent Nos.1 and 2) to seek their discharge in the court below through their counsel. This Court also directed that in that event trial court shall not insist on personal appearance of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for disposal of discharge petition. Learned counsel submits that on going through Crl.MC No.726/2011 2 Annexure-A3, memo it is seen that order of this Court dated 30.07.2010 was produced in the trial court only on 20.11.2010 and until now no application for discharge has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Instead, they are seeking adjournment appearing through counsel. 4. A party shall not be allowed to protract proceeding under the cover of an order passed by this Court. This Court only permitted respondents 1 and 2 to seek their discharge by filing appropriate application and, directed learned Magistrate not to insist on their personal appearance for disposal of discharge petition. That did not mean that respondents (if it is correct to say so on facts) could protract the case appearing through lawyer and prolong filing of the application for discharge. In the circumstances, learned Magistrate is directed to ensure that proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged by any of the parties to it. It is open to the petitioner to request learned Magistrate to dispose of proceeding as early as possible and if any such request is made learned Magistrate shall consider that request having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders. Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks