IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2123 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.702/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): A2 TO 5 ---------------------- 1. RASHEED BAQUAVI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, KAMBALA HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VASIH MUSALIYAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, KAMBALA HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL VAHAB BAQUAVI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, KAMBALA HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. FATHIMA HAJUMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, KAMBALA HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. FATAH BAQUAVI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VAPPUTTY MUSALIYAR, POTTAMMAL KUNHANAMKATTIL HOUSE, EDAPACHALAM, PERASSANNURE P.O., KUTTIPPURAM. 6. MUSTHAFA, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KAMMALI, VALIYAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, THEKKEANGADI, KUTTIPPURAM. Crl.MC.No. 2123 of 2010 :2: 7. FAISAL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN, PAZHAMBRAM ANNATH HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O. 8. HARRIS, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. HAMZA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALU, PADIPPURAKKAL HOUSE, AMBALAPPARA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.2123 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated:17th day of June 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 9 in C.C.No.702/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court, Tirur for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 409, 420, 202, 206 and 207 read with 34 IPC, seek to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings. 2. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to meticulously scan the voluminous prosecution records and hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is groundless and the same is liable to be quashed. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to plead for a discharge before the Court below. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an application for discharge before the court below through their counsel, that court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners for the disposal of the discharge petition. Crl. M.C. No. 2123 of 2010 2 This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb