IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 438 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.2/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI CC.640/2009 OFCRIME NO. 137/2000 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, MACHINGATHODI KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KODUMUNDA, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kl. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.438 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Second accused in C.C.No.2/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against him pending before the court as C.C.No. 640/2009. Case of the petitioner is that by Annexure-A3 judgment, learned Magistrate had already acquitted the first accused for want of evidence and in the light of the order of acquittal, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it will result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A3 judgment, by which the first accused was acquitted, shows that only PW1 was CRMC 438/10 2 examined and CWs 3, 5 and 7 did not appear in spite of coercive steps and in such circumstances, finding that there is no evidence to convict the first accused, he was acquitted. Annexure-A3 judgment does not enable the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him. This Court cannot hold that the witnesses, who could not be examined before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.2/2006, will not be available for examination if petitioner is tried or that they will not depose against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that as a non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner, a direction be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender. 5. When an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders on the application without delay. I CRMC 438/10 3 find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence, no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. 31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv