IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 27 of 2010() ----------------------------------- (SC.NO.197/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,OTTAPALAM) ..... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN @ UDARAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNHATHAN, MANGALATH MELETHIL HOUSE, THANEERKODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.27 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in S.C.197/2009 on the file of Assistant sessions court, Ottapalam. As the petitioner and other three accused were absconding, case as against them was split up and the remaining accused were tried. By Annexure-A18 judgment, learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted those accused. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against the petitioner contending that in view of Annexure-A18 judgment, whereunder other accused were acquitted, in the absence of specific allegation as against the petitioner, even Crmc 27/10 2 if petitioner is to be tried, it would only end in futility and in such circumstances, it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Though learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex court in Heera and another v. State of Rajasthan (2007 (10) SCC 175) and relying on Annexure-A18 judgment acquitting other accused, argued that the case as against the petitioner can never end in conviction, even if petitioner is to be tried and therefore, the proceedings is to be quashed, as held by the Full Bench of this court. Annexure-A18 judgment, whereunder the co-accused were acquitted can be looked into only to find out who are all parties therein and based on the acquittal under Annexure-A18, Crmc 27/10 3 petitioner, the absconding accused is not entitled to get the proceedings quashed. Even though learned counsel wanted to rely on the evidence recorded as against the co-accused, and argued that as no test identification parade was conducted even if the witnesses are to be examined again there is no likelihood of a conviction, I cannot agree with the submission that based on the evidence against the other accused when no evidence was adduced against the petitioner, the case is to be quashed. It is for the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the evidence to decide whether there is evidence against the petitioner to convict him or not. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. Crmc 27/10 4