IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 645 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.364/2007 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.8 ------------------------ RAJESH.U.T., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, UZHAKKATTU MATTOM VEEDU, WARD NO.V., THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PADANADATHUVEEDU, WARD NO.V., THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 645 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 21-02-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the 8th accused in the final report filed in Crime No. 414 of 2006 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 306 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C., seeks to quash the final report as well as the proceedings now pending before the Assistant Sessions court, Cherthala as S.C. 364 of 2007. 2. The petitioner would contend that he has been falsely implicated in the case by subsequent arrangement and the materials now produced along with the charge-sheet would indicate that the incriminating materials were collected against the petitioner right from the next day of the occurrence. According to the petitioner, there was no material at all against him when the Sessions Court, Alappuzha disposed of two successive anticipatory bail applications on 27-10-2006 and 3-2-2007. 3. Admittedly, the Sessions court has not conducted the preliminary hearing under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. The proper course for the petitioner would be to plead for a discharge before the Sessions Court which can certainly peruse the orders passed by that court itself in C.M.P. No. 3515 and and 328 of 2007 (which form part of the records of the Sessions Court) to consider whether the petitioner deserves a discharge. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Sessions Court for a discharge this Crl.M.C is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. -:2:-