IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2660 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.72/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- P.PREMKUMAR, THOTTUMKARA MADOM WESTERN GATE, AMBALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.R.RAMESH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.HARIDAS, THUNDIL VEEDU, KAKKAZHAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-5. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2660 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.72/2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court, Ambalappuzha for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure D court charge. According to the petitioner, he did not get adequate opportunity of hearing before the charge was framed by the court below and if the petitioner is given an opportunity to plead for a discharge he has a fair chances of success. 2. The above case arose out of a private complaint instituted by the 2nd respondent herein. A perusal of the proceedings papers produced as Annexure-E by the petitioner himself shows that his grievance that he did not get an opportunity of being heard before the charge was framed is not true. After several adjournments, the Court below on 6.6.2009 posted the case to 24.6.2009 for framing charge as a last chance with a direction that the accused shall be present on that day. On 24.6.2009 also the petitioner was absent necessitating the issuance of NBW against the accused and the case was posted to 3.7.2009, on which date the charge Crl.M.C. No. 2660 OF 2009 : 2 : was framed for an offence under Section 420 IPC and the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Since the charge has already been framed, the trial has started. Now the only course open to the petitioner is to face the trial. Since a question of identity doesn't arise for consideration during trial of the case, the petitioner will be entitled to apply for personal exemption by filing a petition before the court below incorporating the necessary averments. In case such a petition is filed, the learned Magistrate shall allow the same and shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner, unless it is inevitable at any subsequent stage of the trial. Reserving the above right of the petitioner this Criminal M.C is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb