IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2885 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 22/2002 IN CP.25/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------- SURESH, S/O.JANARDHANAN, REMA NIVAS, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, VADAKKUKOCHUMURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.2885 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.372/1997 of Kayamkulam Police Station initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which, after investigation, led to indictment against five persons including the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for short, the 'Act' along with penal offences referred to above. Admittedly, the other accused in the above case, A1, A3, A4 and A5 after trial had been acquitted of the offences indicted. A1, A3 and A5 were acquitted after a joint trial of them by judgment dated 20.12.2004 in S.C.No.535 of 2001. A4 was later tried in S.C.No.402 of 2007 and he was acquitted by judgment dated 11.3.2009. Petitioner remained at large when the trial CRL.M.C.2885/10 2 against the co-accused proceeded. He has now approached this Court with the above petition seeking for quashing the proceedings invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitting that the materials produced by the prosecution do not make out a case against him for any of the offences, both covered under the Act and also the Indian Penal Code. Acquittal of the co-accused in separate trials as indicated above, by separate judgments, which are produced with the petition, is also banked upon by the petitioner to seek for the reliefs canvassed in the petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the accused are members other than Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the de facto complainant against whom atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated is a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It is further CRL.M.C.2885/10 3 submitted that the investigation of the case was conducted by a Circle Inspector of Police and it was so done flouting the mandate under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. There was no material whatsoever to connect any of the accused with any of the offences imputed and that it led to the acquittal of other accused, is also highlighted by the counsel to contend that the trial of the accused, at this belated stage, is quite unwarranted, and, at best, it would cause only wastage of the precious time of the court. Pointing out that the acquittal of the co-accused is not a genuine ground to avoid the trial of the accused, who had remained at large, learned Public Prosecutor placing reliance on Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552 (FB)) submitted that if at all the petitioner has a case that the charges imputed against him are groundless, he could seek for his discharge from the trial court as provided by law under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. Bypassing the trial court and, that too, after keeping him aloof from the law enforcing agency, the petitioner has moved the petition, is taken CRL.M.C.2885/10 4 exception to by the Public Prosecutor contending that this is not a fit case where invoking of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is called for. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. True, the petitioner has remained at large and presumably, warrant issued against him, at this stage, must be pending. Still, in the given facts of the case, it is prima facie shown that directing him to appear before the trial court and seek for discharge for the reason that he has absconded and evaded from trial earlier would have the effect of only wasting the precious time of the court. It is practically conceded that the prosecuting agency has not produced any worth mentioning material to substantiate that the de facto complainant was a member of the Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe, and the petitioner and the other accused not members of Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe, the fundamental element to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act. It is further shown that the CRL.M.C.2885/10 5 investigation of the case was conducted by a Circle Inspector of Police and, that too, when the Rules mandated such investigation by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even discarding the reasons stated in the judgment rendered acquitting the other accused, on the above aspects presented, it appears, the prosecution of the petitioner directing for his trial for the offences imputed, would not be advantageous to justice, but, it would only result in wasting the precious time of the court. In that view of the matter, further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.22 of 2002 in C.P.25 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M.Court, Kayamkulam are ordered to be quashed. Petition is accordingly disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.2885/10 6