IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2145 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.41/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ----------------------------- 1. BINU,S/O.SIVADASAN NAIR,AGED 32 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER,MUSIC WORLD,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. JIBIN,S/O.BALAN AGED 24 YEARS, CASHIER -DO- -DO- 3. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.LATE U.K.MENON, AGED 49 YEARS,MANAGER OPERATIONS, -DO- -DO- 4. THOMAS IGILS,S/O.PERCY,AGED 56 YEARS, MANAGER COMMERCIAL,-DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CENTRAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2145 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 14th July, 2010. O R D E R This is a petition for quashing Annexure A2 charge laid by the police. 2. Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.41/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police against petitioners and a copy is Annexure A2. The alleged offences are under Sections 52(A), 68 (A) and 63 of the Copy Right Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to petitioners, the allegations in the charge will not make out any offence. None of the documents, which are necessary to prove the case are produced along with the charge sheet. The police has not conducted any proper investigation, before filing Annexure A2 charge. Petitioners have been appearing in court on several occasions, but there is no progress in the trial. In the above circumstances, the charge may be quashed, it is submitted. Crl.M.C. NO.2145/10 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the charge was framed by the court as early as on 3.9.2008 since there was prima facie case against petitioners. Petitioner did not file any petition to quash the charge till 16.6.2010. It is also pointed out that though charge was framed on 3.9.2008 and the case was pending, even thereafter, for more than 1½ years, petitioners did not challenge either the order framing the charge or the final report. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the charge at this belated stage, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents produced, particularly, Annexure A3, a copy of the proceeding sheet, I find that the case was taken on file as early as on 23.2.2007. The case was posted for preliminary argument on charge to 2.7.2008, and the defence reported that they have no argument on the question of framing charge and hence, the case was posted for framing charge. On 3.9.2008, the charge was framed against petitioners. The said order is not challenged so far. 6. After more than 1 ½ years of framing of charge at this belated stage, this petition is filed for quashing the charge. I Crl.M.C. NO.2145/10 3 am satisfied that there is absolutely no ground to quash the charge at this belated stage. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure can be invoked to secure the ends of justice, but I do not find any reason for interference in the interest of justice. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the trial court. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a direction may be given to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the case without any delay. It is also submitted that altogether there are only three witnesses in this case and they are police officials. One of such witness is given up. 8. I am surprised to see that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not secure presence of the police officials, that too, from local police station. It is unfortunate that the accused are made to wait for more than 1 ½ years in the veranda of the court, at least after 19.11.2008, the date on which summons was issued to the witnesses for the first time. I am constrained to pass orders for expeditious disposal of the case. 9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is Crl.M.C. NO.2145/10 4 directed to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs