IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1943 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.82/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM SC.1310/2002 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------ BHADRAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE CHERRI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON 20/06/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1943 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner whose identical request was turned down by another bench of this Court in Crl.M.C No.993/06 dated 05.04.06 has again come to this Court claiming identical relief on identical grounds. The petitioner prays that the prosecution against him in CP No.82/01, may be quashed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that his identical request was earlier rejected by another Bench of this Court as per order dated 05.04.06 in Crl.MC 993/06. The very same question was raised and relief was claimed on the very same ground but the learned Judge was not persuaded to grant relief. I am in these circumstances satisfied that this request cannot be permitted to be raised again and the same deserves to be rejected. The petitioner who has not challenged earlier order in Crl.M.C 993/06 cannot succeed in seeking identical relief on the same ground afresh from this Court. This petition, in these circumstances deserves to be dismissed. Crl.M.C. No. 1943 OF 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coercive process has been issued against the petitioner and the petitioner apprehends if he surrenders and submits an application for bail that may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. I find no merit in this apprehension. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339]. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. The counsel prays that it may be clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to claim premature termination of proceedings before the learned Magistrate. I need only mention that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 1943 OF 2008 3 Magistrate and seek termination of proceedings by discharge/acquittal, if he is entitled for the same. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1943 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1943 OF 2008 5