IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1831 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN L.P.C. NO. 96/2008 (SPLIT UP CASE NO. CC.293/2008 – ORIGINAL CASE NO. C.C.669/2007) BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.7: ------------------------------------------- AHAMMED MUNEER, S/O.HAMEED.K., AGED 21 YEARS, BUSINESS, NOW RESIDING AT MUNEER MANZIL, THAYAVALAPPU, ADKATHBAIL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.SUDHISH, S/O.CHANDRASHEKHARA, AGED 18 YEARS, MASON, KELUKUNNU HOUSE, KELUKUNNU, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.ANILKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KELUGODDE HOUSE, KELUGUDDE, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1831 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner was 7th accused in C.C.6699/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. On the failure of the petitioner to appear, the case as against him was split up and against the other accused were tried. Subsequently as presence of the petitioner could not be obtained, case was transferred to the register of L.P.cases and is now pending as L.P.96/2008. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I FIR as well as L.P case No.96/2008 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod contending that as the other accused were already acquitted after the trial, no purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the trial and hence the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I find that acquittal of co-accused is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings as against the absconding accused. It could only be said that on the evidence, the court acquitted those accused for want of evidence against them. That cannot be utilised by the absconding accused to get the case quashed as against him. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the court and seek trial of the case. Learned counsel then submitted that if the petitioner surrenders, a direction may be issued to the court to release him on bail. Question whether petitioner is to be granted bail or not, especially when co-accused are acquitted is a matter to be decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. When absconding accused surrenders before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Petition is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.