IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4370 of 2010() ----------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 151/2001 OF THE NOORANAD POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VINEETH @ ANIYAN KUTTAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MANIYAN, VIKAS BHAVAN, THAMARAKULAM EAST, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4370 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was sixth accused in S.C.966/2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikara. As petitioner and sixth accused were absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed and the remaining six accused were tried. By Annexure-A3 judgment those accused were acquitted. Subsequently, when presence of the petitioner was procured, case against him was taken on file as S.C.875/2010. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against him contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the co-accused and the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment that prosecution case is shrouded in suspicion Crmc 4370/10 2 even if, petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I cannot agree with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that based on the findings in Annexure-A3 that the prosecution case is shrouded in suspicion or for the reason that the co-accused were acquitted, the case could be quashed, in view of the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552). Though learned counsel argued that PW8 when examined in S.C.966/2003, against whom an overt act was allegedly committed by the petitioner as per Annexure-A2 final report, did not give any such evidence and therefore, there is no necessity for directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal Crmc 4370/10 3 of a trial, when petitioner was not appearing in that case there was no necessity for Public Prosecutor to elicit the evidence against the petitioner, in that case. Hence failure to mention the overt act on the part of the petitioner by that witness when examined in S.C.966/2003, is not a ground to quash the proceedings. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Sessions Judge and seek an order of discharge. Petitioner is also at liberty to bring it to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that the co-accused were acquitted and no evidence was tendered in support of the prosecution case in S.C.966/2003. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.