IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3422 of 2011() ------------------------------- SC.442/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) FAST TRACK II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.8 ------------------------------------- JIJESH,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,KULAMADAYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTUSSERY,KAVIYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 3422/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.852/2002 DATED 17/12/2002. ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 28/2/2003 IN CRIME NO.852/2002 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 16/12/2002 AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE CWI. ANNEXURE A4:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/7/2010 IN SC NO.89/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST TRACK-11,PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was the 8th accused in Crime No.852/2002 of Thiruvalla Police Station. Some of the accused faced trial in S.C.89/2006. They were acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. This petitioner and some of the other accused were absconding. The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 308 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sec.308 IPC was incorporated only to deny bail to the accused and also to make the issue serious and that in fact, there is nothing to incorporate Sec.308 IPC. However, since the other accused were tried for the offence under Sec.308 IPC also, I think it is not necessary to dwell on those aspects now. 2. The de facto complainant is not before this court. Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2011 -: 2 :- Learned counsel submits that in fact, the matter was settled but no document is before court to prove that fact. Therefore, I find, it is just and proper that the accused appears and makes appropriate applications before the trial court. Petitioner can raise all these contentions before the trial court, including a plea for discharge of the offence under Sec.308 IPC. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt