IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 380 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.270/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO.261 OF 2002 OF CHAVARA POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- SANEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SATHEESAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKE ATTATHU VEETIL, PUTHENTHURA, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.380 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.270 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally arising from Crime No.261 of 2002 of Chavara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Altogether, 11 accused including petitioner were charge sheeted by the Chavara Police in Crime No.261 of 2002 alleging that on 20.05.2002 at about 11.30 p.m. they, in furtherance of common intention committed house breaking in the godown of Primo Pipe Factory, Chavara and theft of alloy moulding pipe worth `.25,000/-. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on various grounds including that there is absolutely no material to show that he is in any way involved in the alleged incident. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Some of the accused faced trial in C.C.No.983 of 2002 and by Annexure-A2, judgment they were acquitted. As per prosecution version when the Police was on patrol duty and reached near the place of occurrence they saw accused Nos.1 and 2 and another person near a lorry which was found to contain the alleged stolen articles. In the course of investigation petitioner and others were implicated in the case. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are among those who Crl.MC.No.380/2011 2 faced trial in C.C.No.983 of 2002 and for want of evidence they were acquitted. Annexure-A2, judgment states that mere presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 near the lorry was not sufficient to find them guilty. So far as petitioner is concerned, there is no case that he was not found anywhere at or near the scene of occurrence . 3. Another accused had approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.5104 of 2010 seeking to quash proceedings against him and this Court by Annexure- A4, order dated January 28, 2011 allowed that petition and proceedings against him was quashed. Petitioner stands on the same footing. There is no reason why a different view should be taken in the case of petitioner. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A3, final report in Crime No.261 of 2002 of Chavara Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.270 of 2007 (L.P.No.147 of 2009) of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks