IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 206 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------ [S.T. 393/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA, CRIME NO.592/2009 OF KONNI POLICE STATION] ................ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------ DEEDU, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.VASUKUTTY, MELEVADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KOODAL VILLAGE, KULATHUMAN,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.MANJU, SRI. SAJJU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.206 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of January, 2011 ORDER Second accused in S.T.No.393 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta is the petitioner before me requesting to quash proceeding against him. That case arose on a final report submitted by the Konni Police in Crime No.592 of 2009 for offences punishable under Secs.184, 185 and 188 of the Motor Rules Act (for short, "the Act”). Prosecution case is that on 15.07.2009 at about 3.00 a.m while police party was on patrol duty found, at Muringamangalam, a jeep being driven dangerously from east to west. Police party asked the driver to stop the jeep. The person (said to be petitioner) sitting on the front seat abetted the driver (accused No.1) by saying not to stop and go ahead. The police followed the jeep and got it stopped. On examination the driver (accused No.1) and the passenger (said to be the petitioner) were seen to have consumed liquor. They were arrested and subjected to medical examination. On the above allegation police chargesheeted petitioner along with accused No.1 for offences above stated. It is contended by the learned counsel that no Crl.M.C.No.206 of 2011 -: 2 :- offence is made out against petitioner on the allegation made in the final report. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Sec.184 of the Act deals with driving the vehicle dangerously and makes the person who is driving the vehicle in that way, liable for penalty. Sec.185 of the Act deals with a vehicle being driven by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drug. Admittedly petitioner was not driving the vehicle and hence Secs.184 and 185 of the Act cannot apply against him. What remained is Sec.188 of the Act. That provision deals with punishment for abetment of certain offences. Even if it is assumed that petitioner asked the driver not to stop on being asked by the police party and directed the driver to move forward, it cannot be said that petitioner abetted the driver to drive the vehicle and much less that, petitioner abetted the driver driving the vehicle after consuming liquor. If that be so, the offences attributed to the petitioner cannot stand. In such a situation there is no reason why petitioner should be asked to face the trial. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.592 of 2009 of Konni Police Station, Crl.M.C.No.206 of 2011 -: 3 :- cognizance taken thereon and proceedings against petitioner (accused No.2) in S.T.No.393 of 2010 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Secs.184, 185 and 188 of the Act are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-