IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 319 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.315/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: --------------------------- VINOD, VENMANI MELATHETHIL, POOZHIKKADU, PANDALAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * 2. SMT. MANJU GEORGE, D/O. P.C. GEORGE, VETTI VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, KODUKULANJI KAROTTU MURI, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. (* ADDL. SECOND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2008 IN CRL.M.A. 897/08 IN CRL.M.C. 319/2008) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 319 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C. 315/2006 on the file of the Judicial First First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. The 1st accused is the petitioner before me. He along with two others stood charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC. As he was not available for trial, the case against the others proceeded and it has ended in acquittal. After the trial the case has been refiled against the present petitioner as C.C. 315/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case against the other two had ended in acquittal and there is no evidence it is a fit case where the court can invoke Section 482 of the Crl.P.C to quash the proceedings. The matter has been dealt with by this court in the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552]. This court had held that a judgment not interparties cannot justify the invocation of the doctrine of issue estoppel. It also stated that only a judgment inter parties would be relevant to bar a second trial as contemplated under Section 403 of the Crl.P.C. The acquittal of Crl.M.C No. 319/2008 -2- some of the accused itself is not a reason to bar the trial in the case of other accused. Such judgments would be admissible only to show as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the factum of acquittal. It is further held that acquittal of accused after trial will not entitle the co-accused for an acquittal invoking inherent powers. So in the light of the said decision the mere acquittal of co-accused is not a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. Except for the bald avernment and the matter has been settled. No materials are available so as to invoke the dictum laid down in B.S. Joshi and other v. State of Haryana and another [2003 (4) SCC 675]. If such compromise is arrived at and appropriate application is moved it can be considered by the court at that stage. But with the present materials available it is not possible to quash the proceedings. Therefore the Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above said observations. If the matter is really settled it will not bar the petitioner from approaching this court for a prayer to quash under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm