IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3816 of 2005() ------------------------- SC.379/2000 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.JOY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU, VELAMPLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAVATTY P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADDL. 2. GANGADHARAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, SADANA VILASAM, PAVITHRESWARAM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN FOR R2 SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN FOR R2 (Addl.R2 is impleaded as per order dated 29.1105 in Crl.M.A.14253/05) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.3816 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. He is arrayed as the 1st accused. Accused 2 to 5 have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. Proceedings against the petitioner and 3 others is continuing. 2. The petitioner prays that the prosecution against him may be quashed in as much as no worthwhile allegations are raised against the petitioner and the allegations, even if accepted in toto, cannot constitute any offence against the petitioner. He relies on the fact that co-accused have already been acquitted vide judgment dated 23.06.04 in S.C.No.377 of 1999. 3. The petitioner had a grievance that notwithstanding the order of stay granted in this Crl.M.C, the learned Judge is proceeding to take coercive steps against the petitioner. The report of the learned Judge was called for. The learned Judge points out that on account of an oversight - the order of stay is not available in the files of the court, such inadequacy has occurred. Crl.M.C No.3816 of 2005 2 4. Be that as it may, I have considered the allegations. I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination the prosecution launched against the petitioner. The mere fact that the co-accused have been found not guilty and acquitted by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial against them is not a valid reason on which such powers can or need be invoked in favour of the petitioners. The decision in [Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (F.B)] makes the position crystal clear. 5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition only deserve to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contention before the learned Sessions Judge and seek discharge/acquittal in such proceedings at the appropriate stage. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C No.3816 of 2005 3